Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (8000)	9/16/2001 5:33:59 PM
From: Razorbak	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

While Clausewitz has remained unreadable for a century and a half. Not at U.S. military academies or business schools. One book he wrote, "On War," has become the most influential work of military philosophy in the Western world, and has been translated into virtually every major language in the world. clausewitz.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (8000)	9/16/2001 5:43:09 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

LOL - Clausewitz is best read in the Cliff Notes abridged version; he was the most perceptive in his foresight how generals would ignore politicians and create the chaos of WW1. Maybe the origin of the fighting the last war quote too - it has been a very long time since my first year of grad school studying strategy and the role of force. You are correct that we risk creating an imperial interest in the Middle East in the same way we created an interest and need to stay in the Balkans, by becoming the only big kid on the block who can sort out all the little shits causing trouble. The Great Game as we knew it was gone after WW2, replaced by the Cold War and now this chaotic area of transnational actors and institutions tripping over the old nation-state world. No one can really define the era we live in now - won't be possible until we vave played this game a few more decades. Donc ce n'est pas exactement la meme chose parce que les temps se changent de temps en temps. Rien ne reste completement comme avant.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (8000)	9/16/2001 5:48:28 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 23153

Hi, Ray - "Our own soon to be tested mettle in involving ourselves in the region may well be considered the latest iteration of imperial forces attempting to impose our will on a fractious, chaotic region that has proven to be largely ungovernable." It may "...well be considered..." but it is not. Those who argue the case for an imperialistic foray into Afghanistan argue speciously. Nobody but a fool will try to maintain dominance here. The British learned, and the Russians learned. The Americans learned by observation, and in the bitter aftertaste of Vietnam, are not likely to repeat the mistake. However, a quick police action (which may or may not result in the extraction of Bin Laden) is necessary and possible. Casualties are a certainty. Get in, get out, a lick your wounds after - for wounds there will certainly be. The apologists for the terrorists will call this an exercise of imperialism, conveniently omitting the facts that America has no desire to go to Afghanistan, that she has no desire to needlessly spill American blood there, and that American tax dollars and technological expertise were extremely helpful in propelling the Taliban into their present ascendancy. To call this an exercise of imperialism is a semantic farce. However, as I posted elsewhere... "It is impossible to capture, in a few sentences, the wide range of issues that bear directly, or indirectly, on the war against terrorism and fanaticism. It seems ludicrous to counsel caution to grief-stricken survivors. Madness, to try to assuage the thirst for retribution with dry words of wisdom. Yet, I tell you this; all wars end with a group of people around a table, who negotiate a peace: with a dialogue. The cycle of escalating violence that we call war would be seen far less if the dialogue came first. These fanatics are who they are, and what they are because they do not inhabit the commons of thought shared by many nations. They are outside the fold. Even as we seek justice, and perhaps retribution, we would be wise to begin the dialogue. The soldiers of the enemy are motivated by powerful forces. Some are borne of the 20th century: propaganda, misinformation, indoctrination of the young, and political manipulation. Ignorance, poverty, and fanaticism are much older motivators in the toolchest of despots. The war must be fought as a game of chess. At many different levels, and in many different ways, we must seek to engage the enemy, not only in violence (which is symptomatic of the absence of dialogue) but in the battle for the hearts and minds of followers. Though it take a half-century, if we win that battle, the enemy will be powerless. The days are gone, when the continuous upward spiral of death and destruction will motivate capitulation: it is no longer that simple." Best regards, Jim