#6 Here's my take from the article.
First the kind of war described is the antithesis of any conflict the 'Jacksonian tradition' in US politics will support. If Jacksonian support is indeed a necessary (not sufficient) condition for any US war/conflict effort then this enterprise was already doomed in 2001.
Second, here's the key part on the nature of the WoT:
'...it has always been a war against networks of radical Islamists. But in order to wage that war, the U.S. has had to ally with Muslim countries and people, many of whom believe the state should punish apostates, adulterers and blasphemers.'
'large pluralities of Muslims in countries allied with the U.S. in the war on terror disavow the tactics of terrorism but endorse the aims of radical Islam. For example, 74 percent of Muslims in Egypt feel that sharia should be the "country's official legal code," and an equal majority say it should apply to non-Muslims as well as Muslims'
This looks like a deal was made whether implicitly or explicitly and secretly.
The West makes concessions to the mainstream Arab-Islamic world. Among these concessions is the at least de facto imposition of some key elements of Sharia on non-Muslims in the West.
Mainstream forces in the arab-islamic world in turn will cease any support for terror attacks on the West.
This does seem mad but it would be an explanation for the very strange attitudes of the Western political class since 9/11/2001. |