Fowler Goes Steyn

[August1991]

We appear to have lost the capacity to play the long game. We seem incapable of making the case, even to ourselves, that if these guys really represent a threat to our way of life, then it behooves us to do the nasty necessary to eradicate that threat. We, neither the elected nor the electorate, neither in Canada nor more broadly in the West, appear willing to commit to going the distance, to doing what needs to be done to defeat such an essentially hostile ideology.

Globe & Mail

By all accounts, Robert Fowler is a Liberal (and in this piece, he puts in a gratuitous partisan dig at Harper) but this essay is essentially a cross-over to the dark side. If Fowler is a Liberal, he's sending a message to Trudeau Jnr. Or maybe Fowler is suffering from PTSD.

======

I'm of several minds in how to deal with this threat.

The usual argument is that generals fight the next war using the last war's tactics: everyone in the late 20th century worried about "appeasement". Yet, we won the Cold War by appeasement - or at least peaceful co-existence. We showed the Communists that we would fight in Korea and Vietnam while defending West Berlin and accepting a divided Germany. We lost some battles but we eventually won the war.

In this war, Fowler argues that it is not our concern whether Afghan children learn about Voltaire. (I too have thought the same; I simply want to ensure that Afghanistan or Somalia is not a staging place for attacks against big buildings in the West.)

But in this war, I fear that we may have to do as Steyn suggests and show that we are the Strong Horse. God forbid but we may have to obliterate Mecca and Medina as we did Berlin and Hiroshima to show this.

We live in a world without borders. Like it or not, they come here and we go there. It is impossible to imagine segregation as a solution. Indeed, the Amish, Hutterites, Hassidim live peacefully among us. So, bringing a group of religious fanatics into the 21st century and showing them Voltaire is not the problem.

Edited October 6, 2014 by August1991

[Peter F]

Lol. When has war ever defeated ideology....thought these democrats like Steyn were hard about free speech.

The ideology isn't the problem

[The_Squid]

Another ISIS thread. There are already multiple threads.

[Michael Hardner]

God forbid but we may have to obliterate Mecca and Medina as we did Berlin and Hiroshima to show this.

? The rest of your essay is pretty easy to follow, then this non-sequitur. You just pointed out that the west defeated the Soviets without a direct engagement, so why may we have to obliterate religious icons ?

We live in a world without borders. Like it or not, they come here and we go there. It is impossible to imagine segregation as a solution. Indeed, the Amish, Hutterites, Hassidim live peacefully among us. So, bringing a group of religious fanatics into the 21st century and showing them Voltaire is not the problem.

Bombing religious sites is needlessly provocative so this last paragraph doesn't fit with your point above.

[Black Dog]

But in this war, I fear that we may have to do as Steyn suggests and show that we are the Strong Horse. God forbid but we may have to obliterate Mecca and Medina as we did Berlin and Hiroshima to show this.

From the article you linked:

They know full well that ill-informed and poorly executed Western forays into “Muslim lands” have been disastrous for us – and they are anxious to lure us into further folly. They are confident that by so doing they will dramatically increase their recruiting base, their authority, and the scope and impact of their movement; and they simply do not give a damn about the numbers they will lose in the process. Truly, in their eyes, such losses are a blessing.

And yet:

Should we seriously seek to damage the barbarous IS, we would have to prepare for and then commit to a long and ugly war against an implacable enemy who is genuinely anxious to die in battle with us. In addition, we would have to abandon the inane restrictions we have so hurriedly and complacently put in place (arbitrary time frames, no-boots-on-the-ground), and accept that it will take some up-close and personal combat to get the job done and that there will be casualties, among them a full share of innocents.

The Germans, as they so often do, have a phrase for this thinking: flucht nach vorn or "flight to the front." Like a gambler who finds himself in the hole and decides to throw bigger and bigger bets in an attempt to recoup his losses, Fowler proposes more of what hasn't worked, just bigger.

[Argus]

Lol. When has war ever defeated ideology....thought these democrats like Steyn were hard about free speech.

The ideology isn't the problem

Well WW2 pretty much defeated the Nazis. It also destroyed Japan's fascist imperial culture.

Or had they won, it would have defeated democracy. Those who say war never solves anything are simply wrong.

[Argus]

The usual argument is that generals fight the next war using the last war's tactics: everyone in the late 20th century worried about "appeasement". Yet, we won the Cold War by appeasement - or at least peaceful co-existence.

This is completely wrong. We won the cold war not by appeasement but by getting in the Russian's faces and standing up to them. That's the opposite of appeasement.

[Argus]

The Germans, as they so often do, have a phrase for this thinking: flucht nach vorn or "flight to the front." Like a gambler who finds himself in the hole and decides to throw bigger and bigger bets in an attempt to recoup his losses, Fowler proposes more of what hasn't worked, just bigger.

I think his point was that the reason it hasn't worked was our short, arbitrary, politically motivated time frames. The US turned Japan and South Korea into something like model capitalist nations, free democracies. But it didn't happen overnight. It didn't even happen in ten years. It took a couple a generation. We're not willing to commit to those sorts of time frames any more, though, which is why, he says, the manimals in the mideast are happy to fight us. They know they'll take casualties, but they also know we won't stick around.

[Peter F]

You don't get it Argus. Fowler and Steyn are saying people with a certain ideology must be killed. It is their ideology that justify the killing and not their actions.

It wasn't Naziism that started WWII - It was the invasion of Poland...OR..,it wasn't Japanese Imperialism that started WWII it was the attack on Pearl Harbour/Malaya. It wasn't our most-marvelous western cultural superiority that gave the allies victory but the destruction of the means for Germany/Japan to wage war.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Peter F

[Argus]

You don't get it Argus. Fowler and Steyn are saying people with a certain ideology must be killed. It is their ideology that justify the killing and not their actions.

No, I don't get that at all, for their ideology underpins their actions, and it is because of their actions he believes they should be confronted.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Argus

[Peter F]

ah, it is because of their actions that they should be confronted. Not because of their ideology. Well that I will agree with.

So? How will nuking Mecca solve things?

[Peter F]

I made the mistake of thinking August 1991's OP was an accurate resume of Fowlers article in the Globe and Mail...WRONG.

I quote the final 3 paras of Fowlers article:

Finally, and however improbably in today’s politically correct context, we would have to “maintain the aim” – the removal of an existential threat to our way of life through the crippling degradation of al-Qaeda and its clones – and make it abundantly clear that until that mission were truly accomplished, such a struggle would not be about those nice, distracting things politicians would much rather talk about when they talk about such engagements: development, jobs, democracy, corruption, individual rights, gender equality, faith.

We would also have to accept that, to achieve such an objective, it would take vast budgets and clear-eyed focus over the long haul to convince Muslims in the West and throughout the world that such an engagement had nothing to do with jihadi allegations about crusades; indeed, little to do with religion of any stripe, but rather that global jihad was simply inimical to a peaceful world. Once such a mission were truly accomplished, then and only then could we turn our attention to reconstruction and development.

Short of all this, it’s not worth attempting, and we should walk away, right now: A flaccid attempt, such as that upon which we now seem to be embarked, will undoubtedly make matters worse.

I cannot understand how August thinks what Fowler says is what Steyn says. I should have known better especially since Steyn doesn't say anything but

'We are way better than them'.

[Michael Hardner]

I cannot understand how August thinks what Fowler says is what Steyn says.

Thanks for backing up my post from above.

[Black Dog]

I think his point was that the reason it hasn't worked was our short, arbitrary, politically motivated time frames. The US turned Japan and South Korea into something like model capitalist nations, free democracies. But it didn't happen overnight. It didn't even happen in ten years. It took a couple a generation. We're not willing to commit to those sorts of time frames any more, though, which is why, he says, the manimals in the mideast are happy to fight us. They know they'll take casualties, but they also know we won't stick around.

South Korea was a U.S.-backed dictatorship until relatively recently, but I take your point. The question is: what does "sticking around" actually look like to you? And why do you think a new colonialism will work to degrade an ideology that is in large part a reaction to the old colonialism?

[PIK]

Fowler was a typical liberal no love for the military until he needed help to save his skin and now he sees the light.

[Argus]

South Korea was a U.S.-backed dictatorship until relatively recently, but I take your point. The question is: what does "sticking around" actually look like to you? And why do you think a new colonialism will work to degrade an ideology that is in large part a reaction to the old colonialism?

First, you and I disagree that this ideology is a reaction to colonialism. Its brutality is remarkable by modern standards, but not by historical standards of Islamic expansionism. Muslims have, over the centuries, often invaded territory and then put to the sword anyone not willing to convert to their religious beliefs. Syria was once a Christian nation, you know, so was Egypt. Second, I agree with him that the West does not have the fortitude to stick it out for as long as it would take to shift the cultural value set of that region to something approximating peace and good will towards others. Nor do Western countries have the gumption to do what needs doing in order to accomplish that even if they did stick around. If you want to go imperialist you have to do it the way imperialists do it, which means shooting any of the locals who organizes against you.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Argus

[Peter F]

the West does not have the fortitude to stick it out for as long as it would take to shift the cultural value set of that region to something approximating peace and good will towards others. Nor do Western countries have the gumption to do what needs doing in order to accomplish that even if they did stick around. If you want to go imperialist you have to do it the way imperialists do it, which means shooting any of the locals who organizes against you.

That course of action is hopeless. The fact that you occupy the middle east - by force of arms - then broadly announce that the west is doing so to actually change their belief system will result in the failure of the occupying forces. They will resent and hate the occupiers.

The Korea comparison fails due to the fact the USofA didn't occupy South Korea nor change their ideology. They occupied South Korea - not to save them from themselves - but to save them from North Korea. The same goes for Germany, once the germans were capable of establishing their own government the USofA didn't stay to save Germans from themselves they stayed to save the Germans from Ruski's.

[Black Dog]

First, you and I disagree that this ideology is a reaction to colonialism.

When ISIS says as much, I'm inclined to believe them.

Its brutality is remarkable by modern standards, but not by historical standards of Islamic expansionism. Muslims have, over the centuries, often invaded territory and then put to the sword anyone not willing to convert to their religious beliefs. Syria was once a Christian nation, you know, so was Egypt.

To the first point: ISIS is not particularly remarkable by modern standards of atrocity. To the second point, I would point out that Islam past or present has no monopoly on such activities. How many Jews are there in Spain?

Second, I agree with him that the West does not have the fortitude to stick it out for as long as it would take to shift the cultural value set of that region to something approximating peace and good will towards others. Nor do Western countries have the gumption to do what needs doing in order to accomplish that even if they did stick around. If you want to go imperialist you have to do it the way imperialists do it, which means shooting any of the locals who organizes against you.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not we have the wherewithal to do it: what makes you think it would actually work? Brutal colonial occupations rarely leave stable, prosperous states in their wake once the occupiers pack up and go home. that's not a bug, but a feature of the system.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Black Dog

[Peter F]

Brutal colonial occupations rarely leave stable, prosperous states in their wake once the occupiers pack up and go home. that's not a bug, but a feature of the system.

Thats the thing though. Argus rejects the pack up and go home bit. Thats the mistake it seems. We should never pack up and go home.

[Smallc]

This country was spawned from colonialism. Nice try though.

[Black Dog]

This country was spawned from colonialism. Nice try though.

So were Syria and Congo. What's your point?

Edited October 6, 2014 by Black Dog

[Smallc]

So were Syria and Congo. What's your point?

That the culture and not the colonialism determine the result when colonialism ends.

[Black Dog]

That the culture and not the colonialism determine the result when colonialism ends.

That would be wrong.

[Smallc]

I've just provided examples of successful colonies. There are several others if you'd like me to list more.

[Black Dog]

I've just provided examples of successful colonies. There are several others if you'd like me to list more.

Which doesn't do a thing to support your point. But, as you'd say, nice try, though.