London Mayor: Western "double standards" in the Middle East contributed to attacks

[jpillian]

Blair: Mayor wrong on terror link

Wednesday, July 20, 2005; Posted: 11:33 a.m. EDT (15:33 GMT)

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Prime Minister Tony Blair has rejected comments by London's mayor that Western "double standards" in the Middle East contributed to the growth of Islamic extremism and terrorist groups such as al Qaeda.

A spokesman for Blair, who announced Wednesday his desire for a global conference on Islamic extremism in the wake of the London bombings, said the PM and Ken Livingstone had "different views of the world."

Livingstone had told BBC radio that Western intervention in the Middle East since the end of World War I had been motivated by a desire to control the flow of oil.

While condemning suicide bombings, Livingstone indicated he recognized the conditions that had led Palestinians to take that route in Israel.

"Under foreign occupation and denied a right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs ... I suspect that if it had happened here in England we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves," said Livingstone.

"But I don't just denounce suicide bombers. I denounce those governments which use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy."

While dismissing Livingstone's comments a Downing Street spokesman told: "We recognize that Ken Livingstone has provided, as an elected official in London, a lead to the people of London at this tragic time -- at the same time as he expresses views which we fundamentally disagree with."

Blair said on Wednesday he was considering calling a global conference to discuss ways of tackling Islamic extremism following the July 7 London bombings that killed 56 people and injured hundreds more.

"We are looking at the possibility of holding a conference which would bring together some of the main countries who are closely involved in these issues," he told lawmakers.

Blair said his conference on Islamic fundamentalism would focus on rooting out extremist teaching in religious schools, known as madrassas, and said concerted action was needed across the world.

After meeting Muslim leaders on Tuesday, Blair described extremism as an "evil ideology" that needed to be confronted "by the force of reason." (Full Story)

Blair also praised the work of British intelligence and security officials following a report in the New York Times which claimed the UK's terror alert was lowered prior to the London bombings because no imminent threat was anticipated. (Full Story)

"Though it is terrible that these terrorist attacks took place ... over the past few years our security services and our police have done an immense amount to protect this country also," Blair said.

He said he was satisfied they had done "everything possible" to reduce the terror risk and said the government was moving in the "right direction" to combat the threat of further attacks with new anti-terror legislation.

In a briefing before parliament, Home Secretary Charles Clarke outlined three new criminal offenses at the heart of the government's proposals.

One provision would make the indirect incitement of terrorism an offense, a measure intended to silence radical clerics who have praised terrorist attacks.

Another proposed offense would be acts considered preparatory to terrorism. That would enable security authorities to intervene at an earlier stage to protect the public.

A third would apply a broader definition applied to the giving and receiving of terrorist training.

Clarke said the government also intended to establish a database of extremists around the world who had demonstrated "unacceptable behavior," such as preaching intended to provoke terrorism and running extremist Web sites.

Anyone on the list would face possible exclusion from the UK, or could be refused entry to the country.

Powers already exist for the home secretary to exclude individuals on grounds of national security or public order, but Clarke said they had to be applied "more widely and systematically both to people before they come to the UK and when they are here."

"In the circumstances we now face, I have decided it is right to broaden the use of these powers to deal with those who foment terrorism or seek to provoke others to terrorist acts," he said.

"There is unity of purpose. The Government wants to work with other parties to make sure we have the most effective anti-terrorism legislation on our statute book. Similarly we want to work with the Muslim community to isolate and weaken dangerous extremists."

CNN's European Political Editor Robin Oakley said lawmakers would consider the legislation on their return from summer recess in October and could pass the measures by December.

British Muslim leaders said on Wednesday they had called for an independent judicial inquiry into what motivated the London bombings during their talks with Blair at Downing Street.

"The scale of disenchantment amongst Muslim youth is very clear to see," Inayat Bungalwala of the Muslim Council of Britain told the Associated Press.

"Various factors are at play: underachievement in education; a high rate of unemployment; discrimination in the workplace; social exclusion, and also the government's own policies, especially in Iraq.

"The process of how we get four homegrown suicide bombers must be understood and that is why we are calling for an inquiry."

The Home Office said Clarke would decide whether to open an inquiry in September, AP reported.

Meanwhile a Pakistani official said British investigators had asked Pakistan to pick up a number of men for questioning in connection with the bombings. (Full story)

Actually, I don't think the mayor's remarks were that far off the mark. Certainly nothing deserves the terrorism AQ is perpetrating.

However, the "Great Powers" have certainly treated the ME as their red headed step child for quite a while now.

[Henry]

Rudolf Guliani, Ken Livingstone is not.

[redman]

Originally posted by jpillian

Actually, I don't think the mayor's remarks were that far off the mark. Certainly nothing deserves the terrorism AQ is perpetrating.

However, the "Great Powers" have certainly treated the ME as their red headed step child for quite a while now.

Here's the problem. This is absolutely not the time or the forum (meaning British politics & media) to discuss this stuff in because anything, ANYTHING you say that attempts to provide a rational explanation for the willingness of four young men to blow themselves up while killing as many innocent civilians as possible is going to imply that there are circumstances where that is acceptable.

In short, it's an idiotic stance. I'm fully confident that Londoners will express their displeasure at the next election.

[Sarge]

Livingstone is a leftist kook

[Riggo-toni]

I have to agree w/ Sarge here. (world gasps in shock...)

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Riggo-toni

I have to agree w/ Sarge here. (world gasps in shock...)

Call Ripley's;)

[jpillian]

The sticking point in my book, is that it probably is not the time, nor his place.

He shouldn't give a hint of apology for AQ's acts as the mayor of a city that was recently bombed.

However, at the foreign policy level, I hope that this is not considered an "extremist" statement.

I think the US/UK have been taking steps to reduce the legitimate gripes that many Middle Easterners have with our foreign policy.

In the end, people without hope, will do hopeless things. Doesn't justify it, one iota. But it is certainly the most probable explanation to their motivations.

[luckydevil]

Originally posted by jpillian

The sticking point in my book, is that it probably is not the time, nor his place.

He shouldn't give a hint of apology for AQ's acts as the mayor of a city that was recently bombed.

However, at the foreign policy level, I hope that this is not considered an "extremist" statement.

I think the US/UK have been taking steps to reduce the legitimate gripes that many Middle Easterners have with our foreign policy.

A recent op-ed in the New York times talked about just this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/opinion/09pape.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

WHILE we don't yet know who organized the terrorist attacks in London on Thursday, it seems likely that they were the latest in a series of bombings, most of them suicide attacks, over the past several years by Al Qaeda and its supporters. Although many Americans had hoped that Al Qaeda has been badly weakened by American counterterrorism efforts since Sept. 11, 2001, the facts indicate otherwise. Since 2002, Al Qaeda has been involved in at least 17 bombings that killed more than 700 people - more attacks and victims than in all the years before 9/11 combined.

To make sense of this campaign, I compiled data on the 71 terrorists who killed themselves between 1995 and 2004 in carrying out attacks sponsored by Osama bin Laden's network. I was able to collect the names, nationalities and detailed demographic information on 67 of these bombers, data that provides insight into the underlying causes of Al Qaeda's suicide terrorism and how the group's strategy has evolved since 2001.

Most important, the figures show that Al Qaeda is today less a product of Islamic fundamentalism than of a simple strategic goal: to compel the United States and its Western allies to withdraw combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries.

As the chart on bottom shows, the overwhelming majority of attackers are citizens of Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries in which the United States has stationed combat troops since 1990. Of the other suicide terrorists, most came from America's closest allies in the Muslim world - Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and Morocco - rather than from those the State Department considers "state sponsors of terrorism" like Iran, Libya, Sudan and Iraq. Afghanistan produced Qaeda suicide terrorists only after the American-led invasion of the country in 2001. The clear implication is that if Al Qaeda was no longer able to draw recruits from the Muslim countries where there is a heavy American combat presence, it might well collapse.

As the top chart shows, what is common among the attacks is not their location but the identity of the victims killed. Since 2002, the group has killed citizens from 18 of the 20 countries that Osama bin Laden has cited as supporting the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

There is good evidence that this shift in Al Qaeda's scheme was the product of deliberate choice. In December 2003, the Norwegian intelligence service found a lengthy Qaeda planning document on a radical Islamic Web site that described a coherent strategy for compelling the United States and its allies to leave Iraq. It made clear that more spectacular attacks against the United States like those of 9/11 would be insufficient, and that it would be more effective to attack America's European allies, thus coercing them to withdraw their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and increasing the economic and military burdens that the United States would have to bear.

In particular, the document weighed the advantages of attacking Britain, Poland and Spain, and concluded that Spain in particular, because of the high level of domestic opposition to the Iraq war, was the most vulnerable.

"It is necessary to make utmost use of the upcoming general election in Spain in March next year," the document stated. "We think that the Spanish government could not tolerate more than two, maximum three, blows, after which it will have to withdraw as a result of popular pressure. If its troops still remain in Iraq after these blows, then the victory of the Socialist Party is almost secured, and the withdrawal of the Spanish forces will be on its electoral program."

That prediction, of course, proved murderously prescient. Yet it was only one step in the plan: "Lastly, we emphasize that a withdrawal of the Spanish or Italian forces from Iraq would put huge pressure on the British presence, a pressure that Tony Blair might not be able to withstand, and hence the domino tiles would fall quickly."

No matter who took the bombs onto those buses and subways in London, the attacks are clearly of a piece with Al Qaeda's post-9/11 strategy. And while we don't know if the claim of responsibility from a group calling itself the Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe was legitimate, an understanding of Al Qaeda's strategic logic may help explain why that message included a threat of further attacks against Italy and Denmark, both of which contributed troops in Iraq.

The bottom line, then, is that the terrorists have not been fundamentally weakened but have changed course and achieved significant success. The London attacks will only encourage Osama bin Laden and other Qaeda leaders in the belief that they will succeed in their ultimate aim: causing America and its allies to withdraw forces from the Muslim world.

Robert A. Pape, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, is the author of "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[redman]

There are some flaws in that op-ed piece.

First of all, measuring body counts and assuming that there is a direct correllation between those numbers and the progress in the overall war seems pretty suspect. Isn't this the very thing that journalists 35-40 years ago were criticizing the U.S. for doing in Vietnam? To use a more concrete example, the event in which the single greatest numbers of American GI's in WWII were either killed or captured was when elements of multiple Army units were overrun in the German Winter Offensive of 1944, aka the "Battle of the Bulge". But that event, which was a desperate strategic gambit by a regime and a military which were under tremendous pressure by that time were more indicative of the closeness of victory than of defeat. In short, the increased activity by al Qaeda can just as easily, if not more accurately, be explained by their desperate attempts to remain relevant in light of American and British successes against them as anything else.

The other thing that this geographic study fails to account for apparently is the correllation between religious sects - as opposed to nationality - and extremism. Wahabism - which was born on the Arabian Peninsula, is naturally strongest there. It should not be a shock that many if not most al Qaeda fighters/killers come from there versus elsewhere.

[Ghost of]

Sorry, Livingstone is pretty far left and this kind of statement would be pro forma for his kind.

I suppose Pakistanis blew themselves up

oh and a Jamaican native-turned British citizen then Islamic convert to compel the West to leave the Middle East.

And why not ask for WHAT REASON they want the West to leave. DO you know what is happening in Gaza? Hamas is setting up a theocracy of brutality(and they are still dead set on destroying Israel.) So, in the cases where they want the West to leave(where can Israel go, btw?) ask WHAT they want to set up it its place. And if allowed to grow and dominate the populace what will spring up as a result?

Lucky,

Sorry man, but war is not always the health of the state. War is what men do. And depending on their beliefs and their allegiance to a particular goal such a war can resemble terrorism or janjaweed killing and burning in Darfur(Sudan's state isn't that strong, yet there is genocide there)

[Baculus]

I do not agree with the entire article, but I think we do have double-standards. After all, how many times have we thought about the Iraqi civilian deaths, looked at photographs of these dead or wounded, or thought about the end result of a campaign? Of course, the answer from some is, "It's war, and it is necessary." Yes, war is sometimes necessary, but it is a damn bloody, serious affair that needs to be undertaken only when needed.

Unfortunately, the current WoT environment has created a "If you're not with us, you're against us" situation where discussing this will brand you a traitor, a "kook," or worse: Sympathizing with the terrorists.

[jpillian]

The most interesting part of the NYT OpEd piece to me was this part, in his analysis of the AQ Planning Document :

In particular, the document weighed the advantages of attacking Britain, Poland and Spain, and concluded that Spain in particular, because of the high level of domestic opposition to the Iraq war, was the most vulnerable.

The more division that is seen in the West, domestically, the more agressive, and more successful AQ will become.

While I certainly don't agree with any sort of censorship of the press, it's too bad the press doesn't likewise share this point of view when filing their stories. By continuing to paint a picture of only the bad side of Operation Iraqi and Enduring Freedom -- American and Western opinions of the War on Terror continue to become more negative.

This will certainly do more to further AQ's cause, rather than ours.

[Ghost of]

Bac, to me it's very simple. People who've shown an inability in the past to assert a POSITIVE Western identity(not based on collectivist socialism) that make excuses for jihadism(but never for the neo-nazis, etc) are merely following their programming. They aren't bold or original in their thought, they spout what the reactionary left(as opposed to true and dedicated left-of-center human rights people) believes because they believe, in a bigoted fashion, that these people are not capable of acting from their own core beliefs(however twisted) but must be reacting or lashing out at the 'evil West.'

What foreign policy errors do Buddhist couples commit in Thailand? Blacks of all kinds in Sudan? Civilian Muslims in Algeria? Shi'ites at a mosque blown apart? The thousands of women turned into prostitutes and sex slaves by the Iranian government? When 2 million Bangladeshis were murdered by the Pakistani army, what foreign policy double standard were they guilty of?

This is worldwide and it ain't got but a LITTLE to do with foreign policy. And in the end, since the jihadists want Israel DESTROYED, anything less than full support of that goal is a 'foreign policy error' to them.

Jihadism RELIES on this Western self-hatred and lack of positive identity because for one: 1) It helps recruit aimless youths to their cause who would rather believe in SOMEthing than believe in the nothing of modern European society and 2) it helps achieve SHORT-TERM goals and gives them political legitimacy while they work towards their LONG TERM GOALS

When a ___ imam talks about ruling Downing Street and the White House--THEY MEAN IT. Stop being so egotistical as to believe that you are in complete control of a situation. You aren't. But you CAN fight back.

The Spaniards rewarded the Madrid bombing but the SPanish police--guess what!--still discovered a large bomb on train tracks after the election. A Spanish cop was killed in a shootout with these mfers and then his body was dug up and mutilated.

Europe has been for some time, far more engaging and less discriminating about doing business economically and politically with Arab states. The REAL double standard is that the 'positives' of Western deals or engagements with Muslims are overlooked and 'negatives'

only are worth discussion in the litany of victimology--even if they have to be INVENTED.

Last time I checked, in the Horn of Africa, US Spec Forces were cleaning it out. Must be American presence in...?

[Baculus]

I think part of the problem, jpillian, is unfulfilled expectations. We went from a manhunt to capture Bin Laden, to Bush saying that he wasn't even that important of a target. And the WoT, to me, has actually lost some focus because of the War in Iraq. As someone posted a few days ago, there is a threat of nukes in this nation, and instead of securing our borders, we chose a target in Iraq that perhaps could have waited while we finished what we started. (Of course, so may argue that we are finishing what we start in Gulf War I, so that may be debatable.)

Also, besides the Iraqi conflict, it's felt that the Bush administration hasn't spent a great deal of diplomacy in trying to resolve the Israel-Palestinian question, which many would agree is at the heart of the current conflict. The average arab on the street doesn't want to necessarily destroy Israel, but they do want the conflict resolved.

But it gets messy, with extremists trying to cause a War of Cultures and armageddon; I am afraid that is the exact road where we are headed.

[Baculus]

Bac, to me it's very simple. People who've shown an inability in the past to assert a POSITIVE Western identity(not based on collectivist socialism) that make excuses for jihadism(but never for the neo-nazis, etc) are merely following their programming. They aren't bold or original in their thought, they spout what the reactionary left(as opposed to true and dedicated left-of-center human rights people) believes because they believe, in a bigoted fashion, that these people are not capable of acting from their own core beliefs(however twisted) but must be reacting or lashing out at the 'evil West.'

Considering that the early terrorist grousp were influenced by the Soviet zeal for exporting revolution, which in turn influenced more modern terrorists, this is true to a degree. I think that many of the people carrying out acts of violence are doing it because that is their nature, and many of them have been doing it for so long. They are like the career criminal who knows nothing but stealing and murdering. And they only bring misery to others around them.

What foreign policy errors do Buddhist couples commit in Thailand? Blacks of all kinds in Sudan? Civilian Muslims in Algeria? Shi'ites at a mosque blown apart? The thousands of women turned into prostitutes and sex slaves by the Iranian government? When 2 million Bangladeshis were murdered by the Pakistani army, what foreign policy double standard were they guilty of?

You're describing actions that are often in their own region. That does not make them any less terrible, but it isn't seen as an overall foreign or historical policy. None of the nations you mentioned are a superpower with the reach of the U.S. Keep in mind that the British AND the Soviets have had some actions taken against them for past involvement and foreing policy. (For example: the Chechen conflict.) They more you go to other nations and take actions and influence them, then the more likely you are going to affect their citizens or people in some manner. That's only logic.

No one is saying the world is devoid of a lot of terrible, nasty things. That does not make our own past history or blunders any less relevant. After all, why would we even invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people if the world has so much tyranny and oppression outside of this one region?

This is worldwide and it ain't got but a LITTLE to do with foreign policy. And in the end, since the jihadists want Israel DESTROYED, anything less than full support of that goal is a 'foreign policy error' to them

It is now world wide, and has slowly been developing world wide for a period of time. But examine just our past relationship with Saddam Hussein: The man was a CIA operative and one of our favored men for decades. Or examine our continued support of the oppressive governments in Saudi Arabia, or...I can continue with this train of thought. You've heard it all, and yet you do not seem to acknowledge that, yes, perhaps our past actions have influenced current events. Do you think that the present merely arose from a vacuum?

Some of the terrorist leaders are demogogues - they are the types that arise and take complete advantage of the situation. They find a reason to fire up popular support, and they go with it. I agree that some of the individuals could care less about what we did, and where we did it, in the past. If they did, they would have been attacking Saddam. They are bloody hypocrites, and I find nothing to give them praise. But we also have to keep in mind that our actions give them lots of fuel to work with, never mind the instability in the region that our foreign policy has caused.

Smart foreign policy can make a difference. That has been shown repeatedly through history, and bad foreign policy will often bite you in the arse. That is why we have to be careful about where we make decisions, ala Bush calling the WoT a "crusade."

Jihadism RELIES on this Western self-hatred and lack of positive identity because for one: 1) It helps recruit aimless youths to their cause who would rather believe in SOMEthing than believe in the nothing of modern European society and 2) it helps achieve SHORT-TERM goals and gives them political legitimacy while they work towards their LONG TERM GOALS

The funny thing is, I first heard about the concept of Western self-hatred when reading about the tendency for oppressed people to develop this condition of "self-hatred." And these were writings by Leftist writers, so are you saying that this self-hatred could be related to this? Right-wingers didn't just develop this concept - it isn't anything new.

You seem to confuse foreign policy criticism with "Western self-hatred." I think many in the west do HATE some of our past actions, and some folks probably do hate ELEMENTS of western culture. For example: I hate the Nazi party movement, which has its roots in western culture, but it does not mean I hate the West. Do not confuse the disagreement or dislike of an element of the West with hating Western culture.

In fact, when we say a self-hatred of Western Culture, what are we talking about? It's roots, such as the Greeks, Romans, and germanic traditions? The legal system or its musical or liguistic roots? Or the tradition of democracy and republicism that has developed over the last 200 years? There is a lot to Western culture, so I'd like to hear exactly WHAT about the West is part of this self-hatred? "Hating" the West seems to be very broad and general.

I think there are individuals that really do hate Western culture - often, these people are foreigners who influence 1st generation immigrants - but that seems to have been blown up into including whole segments of the Left, or non-conservative Right, if they offer any ideals that are different. That hatred of those other then so-called conservatives are also a form of Western self-hatred, since Liberalism, for good or bad, has its roots in the West. We can talk about Western hatred all day if we do not talk about conservative Western self-hatred. After all, the Left is a product of the West.

I think it is more than a self Western Hatred that is involved - the men that have been fingered in this attack, if you read their history, didn't strike me as being haters of the West, though perhaps they were easily manipulated.

When a ___ imam talks about ruling Downing Street and the White House--THEY MEAN IT. Stop being so egotistical as to believe that you are in complete control of a situation. You aren't. But you CAN fight back.

I would need this clarified since I didn't quite get your point here, Ghost.

The Spaniards rewarded the Madrid bombing but the SPanish police--guess what!--still discovered a large bomb on train tracks after the election. A Spanish cop was killed in a shootout with these mfers and then his body was dug up and mutilated.

Yeah, the Madrid bombings were bad. I wonder how many of us even remember the exact day it happened? (Hint: it has familiar numbers in it.) I do, since I have read a fair bit about this attack, and it is worth remembering, especially since it is recent.

Europe has been for some time, far more engaging and less discriminating about doing business economically and politically with Arab states. The REAL double standard is that the 'positives' of Western deals or engagements with Muslims are overlooked and 'negatives'

only are worth discussion in the litany of victimology--even if they have to be INVENTED.

The French, Italians and British, among others, do not have the smoothest history in African or the Middle East. But we are remembered because we are larger, have more influence, and because of our close alliance with Israel, in addition to some of our past actions. We aren't the sole Western power that has meddled in this region, but we tend to be remembered the best. Though some folks despise the British even more then the U.S.

[luckydevil]

Ghost,

It's real simple with me. I find the notion that we can transform the Middle East to be simply delusional and dangerous (the consequences could be devasting). I am not down with social engineering and central planning.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by luckydevil

Ghost,

It's real simple with me. I find the notion that we can transform the Middle East to be simply delusional and dangerous (the consequences could be devasting). I am not down with social engineering and central planning.

That's fine.

But don't ignore the potential consequences if we fail. I am not exactly optimistic about our prospects, but it will come to a point where catastrophic destruction will occur if the Middle East and Islam are not transformed.

Establishing true rule of law and ending tyranny are part and parcel of what we believe in. We may not believe in outside national forces coming in to do it, but outside national forces had to come in and change Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Their histories were different than the Middle East, I grant you.

Even Hayek believed in the possibility of a future society in which all people would be free and under the rule of law which would protect private property, thought, expression and liberty.

That's not an appeal to authority but an appeal to the ideals.

Sadly though, I am uncertain of our chance at success when Turkey still struggles with Islamism and actively banned certain religious elements and tried to carve out a secularist identity.

What comes next, whether or NOT we do something in the MIddle East?

[luckydevil]

Even Hayek believed in the possibility of a future society in which all people would be free and under the rule of law which would protect private property, thought, expression and liberty.

That's not an appeal to authority but an appeal to the ideals.

Fine, but this doesn't translate into supporting interventionism. It's twisited logic.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by luckydevil

Ghost,

It's real simple with me. I find the notion that we can transform the Middle East to be simply delusional and dangerous (the consequences could be devasting). I am not down with social engineering and central planning.

Great post, totally agree.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by luckydevil

Fine, but this doesn't translate into supporting interventionism. It's twisited logic.

Lucky

Was occupying a conquered Japan and Germany interventionism?

I'm asking genuinely, so that we can continue from an understood common frame of reference.

I'm not sure if setting up democratic institutions(however doomed they might be) is 'central planning' though. Not sure if I get that.

[luckydevil]

Lucky

Was occupying a conquered Japan and Germany interventionism?

Yes

I'm not sure if setting up democratic institutions(however doomed they might be) is 'central planning' though. Not sure if I get that.

If it is set up by the state( in this case- the american government), of course it is. For god sakes man, put down the Victor Davis Hanson stuff and get back to your roots.

[luckydevil]

dp

[Ghost of]

By that argument, wasn't the American War for Independence and the resulting failed Articles of Confederation and successful Constitutional convention 'central planning?'

I always understood central planning(as used by Hayek) to be applied to government planning as related to the economy and other areas normally reserved to the 'private' sector.

Ever read Lysander Spoon? He's a radical anarcho-libertarian and he makes the argument that the Founders and the constitution are illegitimate.

As for Germany and Japan being interventionist--would you call those successes or failures? History can lead to strange things, perhaps Germany or Japan will become what they once were again. But for now they have not been for some time.

If some guy down the street plots to kill my family or ruin my neighborhood and indoctrinates his kids, I can't protect myself merely by killing him and taking away his weapons.

So, I can either kill his kids or....train them differently so that my family and my neighorhood can be protected.

[luckydevil]

By that argument, wasn't the American War for Independence and the resulting failed Articles of Confederation and successful Constitutional convention 'central planning?'

Yes, but it tad different from what's going in Iraq. Don't you think?

Ever read Lysander Spoon?

yes

As for Germany and Japan being interventionist--would you call those successes or failures? History can lead to strange things, perhaps Germany or Japan will become what they once were again. But for now they have not been for some time.

Germany- mixed results

Japan- Our interventionism was often overstated.

Please don't tell me you buy into the myth of the marshall plan

If some guy down the street plots to kill my family or ruin my neighborhood and indoctrinates his kids, I can't protect myself merely by killing him and taking away his weapons.

So, I can either kill his kids or....train them differently so that my family and my neighorhood can be protected.

It's really not that black and white. You are acting like Jbooma (who can not distinguish the difference between the public and private sector).

I just find it bit odd how can you preach about the evils of state intervention at home and yet glorify the state when it does it abroad. Its one thing to argue that it is a defensive war, it’s another to argue that we can and should transform the middle east.

[Ghost of]

Marshall Plan? LOL No, I don't.

No, just destroying the Nazi ideology and infrastructure and doing the same in Japan for the Imperialists.

As for glorify the state--I don't look at it as glorifying the "State." War and combat are war and combat.

Hell, in Rwanda, it was paramilitaries and civilians that killed the majority of Tutsis and Tutsi-friendly Hutus. War is not just the act of the State, but of groups of individuals.

I DO argue that it is a defensive war. Warfare has changed over the centuries. Now there is not only asymmetric but what is called--4th generation warfare. "defense' does not mean what it once did.

I think much of this comes down to a distinction and a connection. I view violence organized by the State as something that might be more efficient or ruthless than private organizations and individuals but not necessarily different.

You view it as part and parcel of the State. I don't. Humans make up the State. Humans believe in a full range of goals and objectives. Some are utopian or exterminationist, absolutist or nationalist. This means that violence may occur.

I just view the State in this instance as a convenient tool.

I guess my question is: What do you suggest? Much of what we are fighting(forget Iraq for a minute) IS a defensive war--when we're clearing out jihadists training in the Horn of Africa, who do you think they're plotting against?

What would be your plan?