• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

'They hate our policies, not our freedom'

BBond

Diamond Member
posted November 29, 2004, updated 10:30 a.m.

'They hate our policies, not our freedom'

Quietly released Pentagon report contains major criticisms of administration.

by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

Late on the Wednesday afternoon before the Thanksgiving holiday, the US Defense Department released a report by the Defense Science Board that is highly critical of the administration's efforts in the war on terror and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'

The Pentagon released the study after The New York Times ran a story about the report in its Wednesday editions.

The Defense Science Board, reports Disinfopedia, is "a Federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense."

'The current Board is authorized to consist of thirty-two members plus seven ex officio members': the chairmen of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Policy, Ballistic Missile Defense Advisory Committee, and Defense Intelligence Agency Science and Technology Advisory Committee. 'Members, whose appointed terms range from one to four years, are selected on the basis of their preeminence in the fields of science, technology and its application to military operations, research, engineering, manufacturing and acquisition process.'

China's Xinhuanet reported that the board's report criticized the US for failing in its efforts to communicate its military and diplomatic actions to the world, and the Muslim world in particular, "but no public relations campaign can save America from flawed policies." The report also takes the administration to task for talking about Islamic extremism in a way that offends many Muslims.

In stark contrast to the cold war, the United States today is not seeking to contain a threatening state empire, but rather seeking to convert a broad movement within Islamic civilization to accept the value structure of Western Modernity ? an agenda hidden within the official rubric of a 'War on Terrorism,' [the report states].

MSNBC notes that the report, in a comment that directly goes against statements made by President Bush and senior cabinet members, says the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have united otherwise-divided Muslim extremists and given terrorists organizations like Al Qaeda a boost by "raising their stature."

In fact, Wired News reported the board as saying, the US has not only failed to separate "the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists," but American efforts may have "achieved the opposite of what they intended."

Al Jazeera reported Thursday that the board called for the creation of a strategic communication's "apparatus" within the executive branch and "an overhaul of public diplomacy, public affairs and information dissemination efforts by the Pentagon and State Department."

If we really want to see the Muslim world as a whole [the report states], and the Arabic-speaking world in particular, move more toward our understanding of moderation and tolerance, we must reassure Muslims that this does not mean that they must submit to the American way.

As columnist Thomas Freidman of The New York Times wrote Monday in an opinion piece, the lack of planning and a 'clear channel of communication to the Muslim world' means that the US is losing the PR war to people that "saw off the heads of other Muslims."

Wars are fought for political ends. Soldiers can only do so much. And the last mile in every war is about claiming the political fruits. The bad guys in Iraq can lose every mile on every road, but if they beat America on the last mile ? because they are able to intimidate better than America is able to coordinate, protect, inform, invest and motivate ? they will win and America will lose.

The New York Times reported last Wednesday that although the board's report does not constitute official government policy, it captures "the essential themes of a debate that is now roiling not just the Defense Department but the entire United States government."

 
Really?!...i could have told you that years ago...
Damn that pentagon is full of brilliant people eh? :roll:
 
Right on the money. All this talk of "bringing democracy to the Muslim world" and stuff like that is only going to inflame the very people the US is trying to help. Lets face it, people don't like being bossed around and told to change the way they live because it is inferior.

Do I think the Muslim world would benefit from adopting democratic principles? Absolutely. But these principles can't be forced on people through regime change. People in their own countries have to be left to make their own choices about what kind of government and country they want to have. And if those people choose to revolt and ultmately form a democratic societies, they can have the satisfaction of knowing that they did it for themselves and that it was their choice.

I've been saying this for years. The US shouldn't be in the business of wars of choice and nation building just because we feel like it. All this meddling in the affairs of other people is nothing but trouble.

Now if war is forced on us, like a WWII type situation, then I can see the need for a war and nation building.

Originally posted by: BBond
posted November 29, 2004, updated 10:30 a.m.

'They hate our policies, not our freedom'

Quietly released Pentagon report contains major criticisms of administration.

by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

If we really want to see the Muslim world as a whole [the report states], and the Arabic-speaking world in particular, move more toward our understanding of moderation and tolerance, we must reassure Muslims that this does not mean that they must submit to the American way.

 
Sounds like an easy solution. Leave the middle east and let Isreal do what they want. If "they" don't like our policies, keep whoever "they" are out of the US.
 
Originally posted by: broon
Sounds like an easy solution. Leave the middle east and let Isreal do what they want. If "they" don't like our policies, keep whoever "they" are out of the US.

'They hate our policies, not our freedom'

It does sound easy. But you don't sound as though you're getting it. This is OUR Pentagon talking. Contrary to what the Zealot in Chief is selling, "They hate our policies, not our freedom".

Arming Israel to the teeth and defending anything and everything Israel does is part and parcel of those policies.


 
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: broon
Sounds like an easy solution. Leave the middle east and let Isreal do what they want. If "they" don't like our policies, keep whoever "they" are out of the US.

'They hate our policies, not our freedom'

It does sound easy. But you don't sound as though you're getting it. This is OUR Pentagon talking. Contrary to what the Zealot in Chief is selling, "They hate our policies, not our freedom".

Arming Israel to the teeth and defending anything and everything Israel does is part and parcel of those policies.
It's a statement from an advisory group within the Pentagon and it's very common for many dissenting and opposing opinions to be proffered by the various groups in the Pentagon. iow, there's not just one single voice there, nor is this the official and final word of the Pentagon itself. It's merely one viewpoint. Thanksfully, all viewpoints are still considered and pondered there, contrary to what some would have you believe.

 
Let me guess, the idiot neo-cons are going to say the the US Defense Department is full of anti-american frenchmen.
 
oh noes!

Damn the USA in thier policy of not letting the Arab Middle East crush Isreal and wipe them out Hitler style.
 
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: broon
Sounds like an easy solution. Leave the middle east and let Isreal do what they want. If "they" don't like our policies, keep whoever "they" are out of the US.

'They hate our policies, not our freedom'

It does sound easy. But you don't sound as though you're getting it. This is OUR Pentagon talking. Contrary to what the Zealot in Chief is selling, "They hate our policies, not our freedom".

Arming Israel to the teeth and defending anything and everything Israel does is part and parcel of those policies.

I get it. If that's what we believe, then we should do something about it. We know "they" don't like us or our policies. Why don't we proactively do something about it. Pull out of the middle east entirely. We already know "they" don't want us there. We can even quit supporting Isreal. I'm sure they have enough to defend themselves. According to the extremists, that's the real reason "they" don't like us.
 
'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'

...

'In stark contrast to the cold war, the United States today is not seeking to contain a threatening state empire, but rather seeking to convert a broad movement within Islamic civilization to accept the value structure of Western Modernity ? an agenda hidden within the official rubric of a 'War on Terrorism,' [the report states].'

...

'MSNBC notes that the report, in a comment that directly goes against statements made by President Bush and senior cabinet members, says the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have united otherwise-divided Muslim extremists and given terrorists organizations like Al Qaeda a boost by "raising their stature."'

The crux of the matter is this; the current administration is far off base and only exacerbating the problem by being so.

 
What makes this interesting is not WHO released it, or that it was released, but that the Administration has no strong argument to refute the report. The logic is painfully obvious to anyone who follows Middle East affairs.

However, in a world where saying it's so makes it so, the administration has actually won this argument without having any rebuttal. All it needs to do is assert the opposite. If 59% of the American public doesn't know that Rehnquist is Chief Justice of the Supremes, how many will appreciate the point of view expressed in this report? And of that low percentage, what percentage will care? Slam dunk BUSH!

-Robert
 
The Op's statement is too strong - many cultures place much less value on individual freedoms than we have in western liberal democracies.

Eastern collectivist cultures value conformity, and the social group above individuals, and expect citizens to freely sacrifice their own aspirations for the good of their family. Many cultures odn't have any imperative towards freedom.

This doesn't mean they hate freedom, but it may well mean they don't understand it any more than we understand them. I think it would be naive to assume this is not a factor in inter-cultural tensions.
 
Thanks for the newsflash. Now back to regular programming.

On a more serious note you should read what the 9-11 commish has to say on this. It is rather interesting their opinion on the state of the Muslim world and how they develope a hate and above all how people line Bin Laden fuel the fire and can recruit.

Alot of it is based on israeli support. But alot of it is hatred of their own govts and the mismanagement of money generated by oil sales. And how people dont have much of a say in govt. Bin laden uses it to turn their attention on the United States.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Thanks for the newsflash. Now back to regular programming.

On a more serious note you should read what the 9-11 commish has to say on this. It is rather interesting their opinion on the state of the Muslim world and how they develope a hate and above all how people line Bin Laden fuel the fire and can recruit.

Alot of it is based on israeli support. But alot of it is hatred of their own govts and the mismanagement of money generated by oil sales. Bin laden uses it to turn their attention on the United States.

That is great news and all.. but do you think bombs and anal torture will make them like us and want to be like us?
 
That is great news and all.. but do you think bombs and anal torture will make them like us and want to be like us?

Are we trying to make them like us?!?!?!?

Seems to me we are trying to get a democracy started in the region in the hope it will generate a change in govt in surrounding countries.

A lot of the problem is their lack of say in how the govt spends their money.
I suggest reading the 9-11 commish. Interesting stuff about govt entitlements and a collapse of economies in the 1980s.

 
'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'

Sounds like the Pentagon report pretty much agrees with the 9/11 Commission on these points.

As for them "liking us," I would think Bush's crusade to transform the Middle East in our image would entail them "liking us." I doubt his motives or methods will accomplish the task.

 
Back
Top