I wonder how many jihadis interviewed by WND told them they didn’t care who won, or that they were pulling for the GOP because the troop presence in Iraq helps for recruiting.

Allahpundit on November 6, 2006 at 3:31 PM

Well, it depends on what sort of Jihadis they interviewed. Most of the night letters found in Muslim villages tend to paint the picture in very broad terms. Muslim vs Crusaders. America is mentioned, yet they are just as likely to refer to us as generic crusaders or infidels.

These of course are aimed mostly at the lower rungs of the jihadists. Your typical villager/fighter. References to national elections or a political party? Almost certainly not. These night letters showed no indication that they were following American politics. Just like if you go to a typical American bar and start asking people about elections or political parties in Venezuela or Thailand or Afghanistan, almost no-one will be able to tell you any specifics, beyond a possible vauge awareness that there are elections of some sort, and that they hope democracy flourishes.

But the higher you go in the their heirarchy, the more they focus on international politics and elections. So Nasrallah or bin Laden of course will follow this very closely and be very interested in a democratic victory or a republican victory. Just like George Bush has a keen interest in the Iraq elections and exactly who is getting elected.

EFG on November 6, 2006 at 4:01 PM

Professor Blather, Lebanon used to be one of the most cosmopolitan and western of the MidEast nations. Yet it certainly seems to be taking many steps backwards.

Your point about capitalism being a very powerful force for change is certainly valid. But it is most certainly not a guarantee.

Democracy and capitalism are powerful forces. But their are many other powerful cultural and religeous forces out there.

I have heard international business professors talk about how increased business ties make war less and less likely. Sometimes they will start going so far as to say that international trade will go so far as to make war between nations impossible.

I don’t believe it. I look at history and see all sorts of examples of nations that went to war with each other despite having strong trade ties.

US vs England in 1776 and 1812. England was certainly a big trading partner. Yet war broke out.

US vs Japan 1941. We certainly traded alot with Japan prior to WWII. In fact, it was Roosevelts cutting off of trade with Japan that helped lead to war.

France and Germany and England, 1939. All three of these countries traded with each other. Far more than they did with other, more distant countries like Bolivia. And yet they too went to war.

Basically, it is simply an article of faith with international business types that international trade make war “impossible.” But that is all it is. An article of faith.

If you go up to an economist, and try to tell him that interest rates have no effect on employment, he can and will spend hours showing otherwise, and will be able to provide graphs, charts, and mathematical equations to make his point.

But with the whole “international trade makes war impossible”, if you deny this, a international business professor will simply say “yes it does.” And if you disagree, he will just shake his head harder and say a little louder that “increased international trade makes war impossible.” And if you just keep saying no, and ask him to prove it, eventually, he will get very angry, stamp his feet and change the subject. But not until he get the last word in.

Because it’s just an article of faith for him. Just like the Holy Trintity is an article of faith with Christians. Its difficult to explain. It’s just an article of faith, and Christians tend to get grumpy if you just keep asking “but why does their need to be a Trintity?” when they try to explain it.

EFG on November 6, 2006 at 4:29 PM