As I've been saying all along, we should have invaded England. They speak the right language and they have all the terrorists.

OK, they drive on the wrong side, which means we probably would have lost the war.... but, give me a break, what do you want us to attack, Jon: New Jersey?

I'm sure a lot of Roman procurators felt the same way about their jobs, too. "What are we doing wrong? Why do they hate us?"

Well, probably not.

I don't understand what the guy is talking about. The Hezzies are local peasants while his 'young Americans' are an occupation force. What is being compared here? Hezbollah is analogous to some Sadr militia or something, not to these 'young Americans'.

I think what the author is trying to address how we can be viewed as a liberation force and not an occupation force? I think he makes some good points regarding the grass roots effort, but overall he falls far short for one simple reason:

Muslims do not want our involvement no matter how dire their circumstance because many Muslims are taught as children to hate non-Muslims. We need to face this fact.

It's not that "many Muslims are taught as children to hate non-Muslims" (a dubious statement in any case but never mind) that prevents the US being seen as a liberation force and not an occupation force. It's that the US is an occupation force. It's rather hard to occupy someone's country and then persuade them that you're not.

Many children in the Middle East, assuming they survive the attacks, learn to hate the U.S. because the American military and that of its ally Israel (supplied with American-made weapons) kill their family members, friends and neighbors. I think I'd tend to reject American involvement myself under those circumstances, wouldn't you?

The WaPo op-ed and this post have prompted me to post a letter I wrote to the New York Times over a year ago, in response to an an article about "The Mystery of the Insurgency." At the risk of self-promotion, I invite you to take a look.

http://mojavas.blogspot.com/2006/08/we-write-letters-which-are-rejected.html

"There has never been a country that has been built from the outside". Barbara Tuchman from the chapter America Betrays Herself in Vietnam in "The March of Folly".

Been reading this all week and its unreal how stupid our Govt. has been to make the same mistakes (x100 imo) that we made in Vietnam. It never had a chance back then and we have no chance of "winning" in Iraq now.

Grass roots policy: Let Intelligence be directed at creating new energy sources, electing people to office who have no ties with the oil,coal, defense nor drug companies and educate people to grasp the idea that ecological devestation, wars, poverty, discrimination are a result of healthy competition and consumerism turned toxic. Having been lulled into complacency,
the good news is we can wake up to our interconnection and interdependence and change.

I love a good mystery!

It was a dark and stormy night. I could hear the rain pelting the roof, running and gurgling down the rain gutters, the wind howling like a banshee. Suddenly the sound of a gunshot rings out above the cacophony of the storm. Someone shot and killed my brain!

I pondered the implications of having a dead brain and decided it was no big deal. After all I am an American!

>> It's not that "many Muslims are taught as children to hate non-Muslims" (a dubious statement in any case but never mind) that prevents the US being seen as a liberation force and not an occupation force. It's that the US is an occupation force. It's rather hard to occupy someone's country and then persuade them that you're not.

Actually, i wasn't referring to the Iraq situation. Since this is a lessons learned type article I'm referring to any future situation were a Muslim country may have the will but lack the means of overturning a dictatorship and an outside force may be beneficial. I think a significant portion of populations in Muslim countries would prefer the dictatorship than any help by a non-Muslim nation.

Also, when I say many are taught to hate non-Muslims, i don't mean a majority, but i do mean that substaintial numbers of the population in some Muslim countries are taught to hate non-Muslims. If I remember correctly the recent article in the WSJ regarding the significance of August 22nd to Muslims had an example of an 11th grade textbook that was filled with hate for non-Muslims.

I figure the Iraqis have taken the time to learn AMERICAN and are watching George W. Bush reruns on syndication. (as he's in some kind of syndicate) I know everytime I watch, hear, or read about his crap, I get a rash on my ass that won't quit and it really pisses me off. I'm assuming, of course, Hezbollah can't produce the same effect as they don't own a moron of the calibre of our very own Georgie. I'm sure they can breed a pretty fair asshole, but not the quality of a Kennebunkport, Texas asshole, complete with like minded entourage.

I am a charter member of the Bush Ass Rash Federation or B.A.R.F. because Bush reminds of the time I went to this traveling carnival which had those spinning and revolving rides that are suppose to be fun but instead they make you barf. At the entrance to each ride they had a bucket all of which were labeled Barf Bucket. That is Bush in a nutshell or should I say Bush in a bucket.
Think about it, Bush spins everything and we all barf or get rashes on our nether regions.

"I'm referring to any future situation were a Muslim country may have the will but lack the means of overturning a dictatorship and an outside force may be beneficial."

This is a pretty uninformed view and unrealistic suggestion, given the the history of U.S. involvement overseas, in which this "outside force" is most often used to prop up odious ( but "pro-American"!) dictatorships that brutally suppress internal democracy movements and the natural development of civil society. In the good old days of the Cold War, this foreign policy was justified in terms of "containing" the spread of communism; nowadays the new bogus threat of terrorism and the War thereon is invoked. Dissident-boiler Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan (see Craig Murray's blog and book) was warmly welcomed as an ally in the "War on Terror" until fairly recently (as was, for that matter, Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war); he is no longer a "friend" of the U.S., but not because he is a dictator who brutalizes his people, rather, because he denied the U.S. military basing rights in Uzbekistan.

The list is long; in the Middle East/West Asia, start with Operation Ajax in Iran (Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror) and continue to present-day suppport for the undemocratic regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Not to mention Israel, which has a long history of state terrorism and war crimes. The United States has zero credibility as a global force for good/peace/democracy--just the opposite in fact--and the people of those regions know it, even if well-meaning but naive ordinary Americans fall for the propagandistic branding of America as a benevolent, liberating power. Moreover, every US intervention abroad makes the US less safe, since it foments terrorism and blowback. Ivan Eland, while still at Cato, wrote about this (drawing in part from DoD's own studies) several years before the 9-11 attacks:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.html

So, bottom line message: America, mind your own business. You'll be safer, and the world will be freer.

Billmon is also on the case:
http://billmon.org/archives/002677.html

I think we may be really close to solving this mystery!

So, bottom line message: America, mind your own business. You'll be safer, and the world will be freer.

Unfortunately those who run the American government think of it as their business and make it their business.
And they are quite safe flying in their personal jets. And whether the world is freer or less free - that is not even a consideration.

The fact that people can't even tell that Hizbollah has a foreign origin, that they think it's endogenous to Lebanon, is part of the total and overwhelming success that is Hizbollah.

Hizbollah was started by a cadre of Republican Guards from Iran. And this small cadre has so successfully enmeshed itself in the Lebanese community and in Lebanese politics that Hizbollah has *become* Lebanese.

It is impossible for the USA to ever replicate what Iran accomplished because Americans are arrogant and contemptuous of Arabs.

For instance, despite the blindness to history which some people here display (though admittedly Hizbollah's origins is a rather esoteric fact) the infantry officer is far more blind by denying what Hizbollah is *now*. You can't hope to understand something you're contemptuous of.