CAYAMBE

At the core of the Mideast problems is the Israel/Palestine conflict. It is time for the world to impose a fair and reasonable solution on both parties. An international conference should be convened of the major powers to develop some central principles to insure a just solution. These might include the cessation of all settlement activity and the removal of settlers with fair compensation being paid to them for their assets and relocation expenses. The right of return to Israel of displaced Palestinians is a thorny issue. Perhaps some form of compensation could be developed so that both parties are satisfied. Israel needs to return to its internationally recognized borders but these borders need to be also protected against hostile incursions of their neighbors. The Golan heights should be returned to Syria but international monitors should be stationed there to insure that they are not used to bombard Israel. After the major powers develop what they feel is a just settlement it should be presented to the parties for comment after which the major powers should take them into account and prepare a final document for the parties to accept. If they do not the major powers should forthwith end all aid to both parties. If that is insufficient economic sanctions should be approved and enforced to compel the parties to submit. The present situation of encouraging the parties to come to some agreement does not work. The US has failed over decades of trying to mediate a solution. Another group of disinterested nations or parties, even independent arbitrators should be assembled to guide this effort in a technical sense. Too much time and money has been dedicated to this essentially insignificant area of the world. They must be pressured to submit to a just solution whether they like it or not. Peace is more important than the essentially trivialities they are now squabbling about ad infinitum. Solve this problem and many other problems will dissolve away or will be more amenable to solution than at present. It is a start in a new direction.

Ryan Mahon wrote:
"That striking trend is to talk about public opinion, rhetoric, and the content of responses to charges rather than to talk about policy, lived experience under that policy, and how best to improve it."

This is the most astute observation I've come across lately. And I largely agree with your application of this observation to Suskind's piece.

RON.
Now that is a really excellent recommendation as to the attitude we should adopt. But now, given where we are, what would you have us DO and WHY, consistent with that attitude, with respect to Iraq, North Korea, Israel/Palistine, Afghanistan, and Iran?

Iraq is sliding towards a civil war and Middle East is sitting on a potentially full scale armed conflict .

I think it's too late now . Things in Middle East are already beyond the point of no return . It's no use now arguing whether Iraq had WMD or not . The only thing we Americans can hope is to hope for the best but be prepared for the worst .
Commentators on the left and right like Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore are making loud noises each one espousing his own case . But the sad part is that there is no one on Left or the Right who can come up with a pragmatic solution for Middle East .
I am not a politician neither am i interested in bipartisanship . So i do not want to comment whether invasion of Iraq was right or wrong . That is for Dems and GOP to decide . But as a student of military operations and tactics , i did like to say that invasion of Iraq was the worst planned invasion since Napoleon 's ill-fated move towards Moscow in winter of 1812 . At least half a million troops were needed for Iraq invasion and care had to be taken that buraucratic structure of the country was allowed to remain intact even after Saddam was toppled . No steps were taken to secure the border with Syria, Jordan and Iran to prevent infiltration of so Jihadi elements .

The US and individual Americans can help to reduce anti-American views by doing some very simple things. First, be humble. Stop telling and lecturing others how we think they should arrange their affairs. It is patronizing and perceived as such. Most Americans do not understand, in fact are abysmally ignorant of, the historical reasons and other causal factors which produced other societies. Our own country is the product of many variables and it is difficult enough to understand them much less believe that we have reached a point of perfection. Let others take from us what they feel is useful and relevant to them. Other peoples usually want many things we ourselves want but not everything we think is desirable is seen the same way elsewhere. Assist them to make incremental progress to freer and more democratic societies if they ask us to. Adopt a "cafeteria" approach to ideas. Disseminate our views by making them available and let those interested select those they want and leave those they do not want. It takes many generations to change a culture or a nation. Stop interfering in the internal affairs of others. Listen to what they want to achieve and help them in what seems desirable to us ignoring the rest. Let others build their own nations if they can with our help if they want it and our indifference if they do not. Stop being a scold, smug in the idea that we are the owners of the sole truths of how to live. Let Americans learn to adopt praiseworthy ideas and practices of others when they are transferable to our own mileau. Do not presume that because the US has achieved a higher level of economic prosperity than many nations that makes individual Americans somehow superior to others. Do not stereotype other cultures or nations. Take individuals on their own merits and do not presume that we know them based on where they are from. All countries with advanced or backward systems have persons who are likewise advanced or backward and that includes Americans. Listen to real experts on other nations not the amateurs who often run our affairs. Generally, those who have lived in other nations for significant periods will understand infinitely more than those who have not. Talk and persuade without threatening. Only when diplomacy has reached its final stages are threats in order and even then they should be subtle. Respect the dignity of others always. These will do for a start.

by Ryan Mahon: "I agree, I would love this country to split so that you can create a state that you invision."

looks like another secession war ahead ?

Incidentally, this would be the end to the "United" in USA. I'd bet in a near future there will be 5 countries in north-america: West-coast, North-east, Quebec, old-canada, Bible-belt. And Bin Laden will have won: the USA to become only the shadow of itself.

As much as we needed 2 world-wars in Europe to become civilicised, you'll probably need another secession war too. History has a tendency to repeat itself.

Bombing and warring with countries much poorer and smaller than the US is not a sign of power and bravery. To some Americans especially those who blindly support Bush, dropping bombs seems to be the answer to the Mid East problems. There are legitimate grievances against the United States, one only has to look back 20 years. Bush has excerbated those grievances by his obnoxious rhetoric and threats for regime change. Like a fratboy who struts in campus, Bush does a lot of sabre rattling, threats of economic sanctions, threats of invasion, refusal to talk with the "evildoers", tactics which are counterproductive. Bush & his cabal must be removed from office - until then, the world will view the US as an ignorant bully. Most countries will not cooperate until Bush is out of office.

Amen to the Real Patriot for spelling it out. Maybe if you want to look at the real root of the problem, read a book called "House of Bush, House of Saud". As long as we keep tying our economic life line to an area that has proven through the years to be unstable, we will never defeat the real terror which is simply a reaction to overt American oil policies and its continuing support of Israeli policies. You don't exactly see George Bush doing anything about that... next time a large attack happens, dont be surprised if they dedicate it to the President.

FYI, the inflammatory writer is not "Tim" but someone who did not provide a name. I wrote the comments on culture just before him.

Hey Tim, dont "have a lot of time"? Your ignorant response seems to have taken a while for you to sit there and come up with your baseless arguments. Your post seems more of response that the idiot O'Reilly has on his white-supremcacist show on Fox "News". Just like too many Americans like Mr O'Reilly you confuse being loud with being right. I agree, I would love this country to split so that you can create a state that you invision. That way, terrorist attacks would only occur on your soil. By the way, the majority of people like myself who oppose the war in Iraq have done so since way before the drop of the first bomb in Baghdad. We did not measure the affects of invasion before the war and we are still not sure of the long term affects as we hope to put an end to this atrocity. I know Sadaam was a dissillusioned leader but at least there was stability throughout the country as opposed to the redicilous amount of insurgency and chaos that runs rampid throughout the country. If we are not going to leave Iraq until the country can take care of itself then it looks like we are going to be there until 2020. It's so reassuring to hear that we spend billions on Iraq when our own citizens live below the poverty line and without health care. If we hope to protect the security of our own citizens, then why not start within our own boarders? You know what those billions of dollars could do for our poverty stricten areas? The war on terror is like the war on drugs...endless and a waste of resources

Upon re-reading, ditto for Suskin and several others as well.

Tim's comments reflect an important and contradictory trend in the media, particularly news outlets. That striking trend is to talk about public opinion, rhetoric, and the content of responses to charges rather than to talk about policy, lived experience under that policy, and how best to improve it. Because of this trend, President Bush is literally getting away with murder unchallenged. This is exactly how: through apparent challenges to the war that actually support conventional warfare. Tim has no interest in ending the war, only in changing the tactics of forging allies. Ironically, of course, one of the best ways to expose this game of smoke and mirrors Tim and George play is to talk about the rhetoric and discourse of media coverage.

Anti-Americanism is alot like hating the New York Yankees.

I grew up in Philly. My father was the biggest NY Yankee hater. He always made rational explanations but when you got down to it, it was jeolousy pure and simple. The Yankees were great and the Phillies/A's stank. Even the one year the Phillies made it to the World Series, 1950, it was a sweep by the Yanks.

I look around the world at the people who really seethe at hatred for the USA. I wouldn't trade places with any of them. Most come from failing states and societies. They want us to share their misery.

Tim's comments show clearly why we are reviled in the world. He represents an ignorant, but loud, minority, and it's hard to persuade others that he doesn't speak for the country.

I don't have a lot of time, but if you don't like it here, leave. Move to Canada or even Hollywood where you may feel more comfortable. Who cares whether you agree with the President or not? 9-11 changed everything and EVERY terrorist that can be confronted away from the US should be. They didn't just pop up as evidenced in Clinton's 8 years -- and fortunately for our country's security the current President is doing SOMETHING as opposed to nothing. You can debate all you want about right or wrong but have you traveled to NY lately without fear or walked near the Pentagon without fear? Those idiots want to kill Americans, not because of anything other than that we exist just as those from Israel. The UN is as worthless now as it has been for years and to believe that we expect anything binding and/or enforced from them is insane. Stop being a political hack an appreciate what the President had to do when confronted (as were all other Washington politicians, intelligence agencies, etc.) with the possility that WMD could find it's way into the hands of the same fanatics that attached the US during Clinton's days or on 9/11. Who should take that risk? If it had happened, and we all know that is the goal of each of them, and we survived, what would all the President haters be saying today? That he had Clinton's backbone? Of course not, the President did what he should have done to prevent as best as he could of another 9/11 and protect the US. As an American citizen in these times, I don't and will never care what a Frenchman or any other citizen in the world thinks of the US, whether positively or negatively. They are want to be us and since that is impossible, they are negative and unfortunately their expressions would go nowhere if it weren't for you and those like you. I would love for this country to be able to split apart physically just as it is politically so the Michael Moore's can live their lives and the real Americans that truly love the US can live separately. Have you ever thought about the differences? The Dems wouldn't need to be negative all the time, nor raise taxes to create a socialist state and create meaningless jobs, nor misled minorities for votes thru entitlements, etc., etc., as they would naturally have their world, one in which they just like the rest of the world would want to be just like the other half of the US, i.e., working productively, strong defense and in a position to protect itself from the same idiots that you are indirectly supporting by constantly bashing what we are doing now. In fact the Dems would be doomed as an actual plan and execution of that plan would be necessary and we all know there is no chance of that. Think about that for a moment and asked yourself on which side would you want your family to live!!!! I

We should be making efforts to understand and recognize Middle East culture as a way to reduce hostility. Language, poetry, literature, movies, food, and yes, religion, should all be the focus of our diplomatic and cultural ties to the Middle East. I deeply regret the construction of the military lens with which we look at the Middle East nowadays. It's the only way the government approaches that area and it certainly seems to be the primary way that the media does as well. We should also understand that while the vast majority of Muslims despise violence, they crave justice and respect. When images of Muslims dying at the hands of Western/Westernized countries (US, Israel, etc.), they see a need for retribution. How many enemies did we just make in Lebanon? One is too many in my book. In addition, we should seek more subtle ways of showing that people like Osama bin Ladin are deviants from "mainstream" Islam. In other words, we should be speaking in the language of the region by pointing out how OBL and al-Qaida are essentially bad Muslims who should be cast out of the fold by the broader Muslim community.

We should increase ground forces to 2 million
men by recruiting from 20 million H.S. drop-
outs. Put 1 1/2 in the Iraq-Afghan theatre,
which should stabilize it. Iran will give up
its nuclear build-up and more troops can be
sent to stabilize Africa. Without the buildup, we must leave Iraq and bolster the
Afghan troops before we also lose that war.
Status Quo is supporting a losing strategy.

It is very difficult to win over any moslems when the United States is viewed (quite correctly) as being the surrogate parent to Israel much as we have decried Iran for holding the same role with Hisb'Allah.

Nothing will change until we reasses our relationship with the only country in the Middle East to invade it's neighbors in the last fifteen years.

I believe the Bush administration has damaged it's credibility to the point that we can no longer effectively use diplomacy. Most national leaders do not believe what Bush says. He has been wrong or lied too many times about a variety of international and domestic issues such as: WMD; things are improving in Iraq; there is a connection between Iraq and terrorists. Our only hope is to make it until 2008 and pray that we elect a person with enough intelligence to grasp the complexity of the world and not believe that we can use preemptive military force to correct real and perceived faults in the governments of other nations. Also, your estimate of the cost of the Iraq war is probably greatly understated in that it is estimated that the price of oil includes a $30 a barrel premium because of the turmoil in the Middle East. The real toll is most likely a trillion dollars. Although some of that total comes back to the oil companies. And to think we had a crisis about an affair with an intern.

We all want peace abroad and safety at home. Among your suggestions to help realize these ends are toning down our (the Administration's) rhetoric, quietly supporting moderates in Muslim world, and reparations. How will such small measures make the US any safer, if the central argument in the Arab/Muslim world against US policy is our support of Israel?

At what point will the Arab/Muslim world be held accountable for contributing to peace and stability in this region? Even if Israel disappeared tomorrow, I think the US would still be seen as "The Great Satan", simply because political society in the Arab/Muslim is so corrupt and dysfunctional that it can only survive through xenophobia and paranoia, which manifests itself as hatred of the US in particular and Western civilization in general.

This was essentially what happened in the USSR during the Cold War - use of perceived outside threats to legitimize corrupt governments and ideologies. If the US is to win this battle, we need to stick close to our allies (Israel and Egypt, etc.)in the Middle East and Asia.

Mr. Suskind,
Is this extreme anti-American sentiment really a new phenomena? Extremists have long existed. What hurts us now is that they have more of a buffer because as you say, others who are fed up with America offer tacit support.

Wouldn't another option be to make the stakes of siding with the terrorists much higher, like President Bush suggests? Essentially, holding governments accountable, using more, not less force?

Is simplistic, even offensive rhetoric really as harmful as misguided wars and might not harsh rhetoric be an attempt to push wavering regimes toward siding with America?

Finally, how moderate do you think "moderate" governments are. For example, in Pakistan a reasonably moderate government seems to help the U.S. at a surface level, but at a deeper level lets terrorism persist unabated. Isn't there a problem in a more hands off approach? Isn't more force, not less, imperative to prevent government duplicity?