
Originally Posted by
DevilPup John
I apologize it's taken so long to get back to this; work's been hectic.
You're trying to get to a war on Islam; not that you're trying to start one but let's cut to the chase and discuss that, as it seems like we're leading to this. First I'd like to say I believe this is an important conversation to have. To say that, to a great degree, we are at war with Islam, is not totally unjustified. ISIS represents a small portion of what we are truly up against; and this is fair. However, I think you're making it out to be simpler than it is.
I'd argue that while you're not necessarily incorrect in pushing this point I think the answer is even more complicated than your comparison of SS - Nazi. The SS was very clearly a Nazi instrument; ISIS isn't an Islamic instrument, Islam isn't a uniform and unified group that we can simply declare war on.
Kurds, Houthi Rebels, Shia, Sunni, the complexity of this is far deeper than SS - Nazi, Vietnam - USSR. Is there a conflict between us and Islam? Yes, to some degree this is a fair statement; and I would even go so far as to say to some degree we're in conflict with a majority of the Muslim faith. However, the issue is far more complex than "Muslim = Enemy".
Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, these are all players and enemies/friends/neutral parties.
You're correct, dismantling ISIS won't sooth this conflict; but it will make handling the greater conflict easier. It also ensures we keep a seat at the big boy table. To ignore ISIS is to become an isolationist; and I don't believe this is a viable solution.
This is a fair point; and I think we should expand on it. I'm willing to accept this point and find it valid. I do think, however, that addressing this concern isn't as easy as saying "Islam".
I think this is a fair point; but again more complex than you're making it out to be. Can I agree that Russia/Iran and even to some degree Islam on the whole are a "threat"? Absolutely. Does that mean I should label them all as such and begin a campaign against them?
Maybe; but far more analysis needs to be done than simply "they are the enemy". I think you and I can agree on the common theme; and I'm willing to concede that it does go much deeper than ISIS. But I think simply by naming the threat; we can cause the situation to spiral.
There mere fact that you and I are discussing Islam as a legitimate threat to the US would be seen by some as racist. Whether or not that's true is irrelevant. Much like Tesla's stock shoots up despite the fact that it's fundamentals don't justify it, the impact the "market" has is serious. Handling it delicately is very important.
Can we agree on this?
Again, the goals are irrelevant to me; and I think you've touched on this. I'm not, nor have I ever made the claim that Iraq and Vietnam had similar goals, but that a fundamental misunderstanding and handling of the conflict ultimately lead to a public opinion drop, and ultimately the failure of the campaign.
I agree on this 100%, but I honestly don't know the best approach. I do believe the election of President Trump has shown that to some degree America is tired of the "left" and their unwillingness to sit at a table and discuss whether or not Islam is a problem.
However, I think addressing this question and concern, while important, is difficult.
I don't think we fundamentally disagree on the threats and the problem. I agree, not being able to define our enemy does make it difficult; however defining them carefully is important. If we push public opinion away then we can't effectively engage in a campaign.
Bookmarks