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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (1608)	9/28/2001 1:31:50 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Rather than framing Wolfowitz and Powell in the traditional 'conservative vs. moderate' portrait, I think it wise to cast those labels into the new paradigm and emerge with more apt definitions. The practicality of Wolfowitz's position would only apply to a limited number of actual 'states'. If I'm assessing correctly what's couched in those terms, he's essentially arguing for setting up one state (Iraq?) to be thrashed militarily as an example to others, to convince them to comply. Otherwise, the Middle East, and a few other states (Indonesia, Ireland, etc) would require the same, which is practically unwise and tactically about as ruthless as a nuclear global assault. Powell's approach is, I gather, rooted less in cheerleading the nation into gung-ho revenge and more on selling the notion that this war cannot be fought with smartbombs and bulldozers on a flat desert against an army of hostage-conscripts, but will require the greater use of special forces and odd allies engaging a well-scattered enemy over a great deal of time. Each of their roles is conducive to the success of the challenge ahead as they speak not in opposition to each other but, in fact, as complements. It's similar to the 'good cop/bad cop' roles, though in this case, they serve more as the 'patient detective/street cop' models. Wolfowitz has drawn a fresh line in the sand as a warning to all who sponsor terrorists, though our coalition-building suggests the warning is intended more for future sponsors than past ones. There is no moral ambiguity in that tough line, so long as the time frame allowance permits room for the diplomatic courtesy of blinders to things behind the path of the horses being saddled. Powell is speaking more to Americans, preparing us for a longer journey than initially imagined, replete with evidence gathering and the attention to detail necessary to build a prosecutable series of assaults that will convince moderate skeptics rather than inflaming them, as Bin Laden wanted and has planned for. Neither speaks of the other central interest at work here - the economic one - and both pander to crowds whose immediate and overriding interest is self security on US soil. Unfettered access to the petroleum of the Middle East grants security to the economic well-being of the crowds, but also benefits a lobby of powerful corporations and individuals... including a few repressive Middle East government leaders. The risk, if the American public and world populations do not pay more attention to this unmentioned element, is that the natural desire for security and the worries of igniting a holy war will be toyed with by the street cop and the patient detective. A prolonged anxiety permits this 'complementary constabulary' to sway emotions hither and yon in support of all manner of deeds, while the backroom deals and possibly unholy alliances of power brokers pose unknown risks to future populations on all sides. This alone remains part of the old paradigm, and it should not. I don't believe either of the principals (Powell and Wolfowitz) represent an isolationist viewpoint. Substantial numbers of Americans may settle into a 'why bother?' mode of isolationism if the task of tracking and eliminating the more potent terrorists takes too long. Others may recoil into isolationism if the acts of terrorism yield thousands of more deaths while our cops bring too few to justice. I'm completely in agreement that there is a necessary war that must be waged to overcome this evil, and it must be unrelenting. The cautious approach to Afghanistan is warranted by the formidable logistic obstacles many have noted, not just of geography and history, but as well such things as the proximity of winter. There are approximately 40 other countries where terrorist cells can be attacked, however. And the early returns indicate a substantial engagement over a broad front has begun. The deployment of Special Forces into the region of central focus - Afghanistan... or wherever Bin Laden & his peers are - strongly suggests we are not idly biding our time there just because it's hard. Powell and Wolfowitz may have to fan a few flames to keep the crowd behind these efforts, but only tangible results can sustain their staged effort beyond a few months... and they both are fully aware of that. Thus, there are two major dangers to the effort. The apparent one would be the moral lapse, if the currently small minority of isolationists gain sufficient foothold that any serious consideration to the appeasement with murderers occurs. The quiet danger is that of allowing status quo power brokers (who materially benefit enormously from Middle Eastern oil) to pervert legitimate foreign policy goals and strategies into anything that thwarts the visible aims of a public united for a greater common and moral good. In a society such as ours, which champions the concept and benefits of a representative democracy, it becomes the moral and practical responsibility of the majority to carry the fight against murderers to a successful end. Part of that practicality means we must avoid the trap of following the paths Bin Laden and his peers have predicted we'll take. But the other trap that practicality demands of us is to remain skeptical of the juggling routine presented by Powell and Wolfowitz who are quite aware of the human appetite for circuses. Not because they are bad guys, but simply because they are government leaders. As such, they are prone to the same impulses of all government leaders, to cater to powerful economic interests. We must keep a vigilant eye there throughout this struggle to maintain the best odds for a successful outcome most beneficial to the greater common good, or we will gain yet another half-solution that has plagued our foreign policy ventures from Korea to Vietnam to Iran to Central America to Iraq to Sudan to Afghanistan-the-first-time-around. And if this sounds time-consuming or daunting, remember, we commit our young to risk their lives for a just outcome. Our responsibilities do not demand as much as that, and we owe it to them, to the families whose losses have already occurred, and to the world: we must not yield and we must not fail.

To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (1608)	9/28/2001 1:31:51 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Rather than framing Wolfowitz and Powell in the traditional 'conservative vs. moderate' portrait, I think it wise to cast those labels into the new paradigm and emerge with more apt definitions. The practicality of Wolfowitz's position would only apply to a limited number of actual 'states'. If I'm assessing correctly what's couched in those terms, he's essentially arguing for setting up one state (Iraq?) to be thrashed militarily as an example to others, to convince them to comply. Otherwise, the Middle East, and a few other states (Indonesia, Ireland, etc) would require the same, which is practically unwise and tactically about as ruthless as a nuclear global assault. Powell's approach is, I gather, rooted less in cheerleading the nation into gung-ho revenge and more on selling the notion that this war cannot be fought with smartbombs and bulldozers on a flat desert against an army of hostage-conscripts, but will require the greater use of special forces and odd allies engaging a well-scattered enemy over a great deal of time. Each of their roles is conducive to the success of the challenge ahead as they speak not in opposition to each other but, in fact, as complements. It's similar to the 'good cop/bad cop' roles, though in this case, they serve more as the 'patient detective/street cop' models. Wolfowitz has drawn a fresh line in the sand as a warning to all who sponsor terrorists, though our coalition-building suggests the warning is intended more for future sponsors than past ones. There is no moral ambiguity in that tough line, so long as the time frame allowance permits room for the diplomatic courtesy of blinders to things behind the path of the horses being saddled. Powell is speaking more to Americans, preparing us for a longer journey than initially imagined, replete with evidence gathering and the attention to detail necessary to build a prosecutable series of assaults that will convince moderate skeptics rather than inflaming them, as Bin Laden wanted and has planned for. Neither speaks of the other central interest at work here - the economic one - and both pander to crowds whose immediate and overriding interest is self security on US soil. Unfettered access to the petroleum of the Middle East grants security to the economic well-being of the crowds, but also benefits a lobby of powerful corporations and individuals... including a few repressive Middle East government leaders. The risk, if the American public and world populations do not pay more attention to this unmentioned element, is that the natural desire for security and the worries of igniting a holy war will be toyed with by the street cop and the patient detective. A prolonged anxiety permits this 'complementary constabulary' to sway emotions hither and yon in support of all manner of deeds, while the backroom deals and possibly unholy alliances of power brokers pose unknown risks to future populations on all sides. This alone remains part of the old paradigm, and it should not. I don't believe either of the principals (Powell and Wolfowitz) represent an isolationist viewpoint. Substantial numbers of Americans may settle into a 'why bother?' mode of isolationism if the task of tracking and eliminating the more potent terrorists takes too long. Others may recoil into isolationism if the acts of terrorism yield thousands of more deaths while our cops bring too few to justice. I'm completely in agreement that there is a necessary war that must be waged to overcome this evil, and it must be unrelenting. The cautious approach to Afghanistan is warranted by the formidable logistic obstacles many have noted, not just of geography and history, but as well such things as the proximity of winter. There are approximately 40 other countries where terrorist cells can be attacked, however. And the early returns indicate a substantial engagement over a broad front has begun. The deployment of Special Forces into the region of central focus - Afghanistan... or wherever Bin Laden & his peers are - strongly suggests we are not idly biding our time there just because it's hard. Powell and Wolfowitz may have to fan a few flames to keep the crowd behind these efforts, but only tangible results can sustain their staged effort beyond a few months... and they both are fully aware of that. Thus, there are two major dangers to the effort. The apparent one would be the moral lapse, if the currently small minority of isolationists gain sufficient foothold that any serious consideration to the appeasement with murderers occurs. The quiet danger is that of allowing status quo power brokers (who materially benefit enormously from Middle Eastern oil) to pervert legitimate foreign policy goals and strategies into anything that thwarts the visible aims of a public united for a greater common and moral good. In a society such as ours, which champions the concept and benefits of a representative democracy, it becomes the moral and practical responsibility of the majority to carry the fight against murderers to a successful end. Part of that practicality means we must avoid the trap of following the paths Bin Laden and his peers have predicted we'll take. But the other trap that practicality demands of us is to remain skeptical of the juggling routine presented by Powell and Wolfowitz who are quite aware of the human appetite for circuses. Not because they are bad guys, but simply because they are government leaders. As such, they are prone to the same impulses of all government leaders, to cater to powerful economic interests. We must keep a vigilant eye there throughout this struggle to maintain the best odds for a successful outcome most beneficial to the greater common good, or we will gain yet another half-solution that has plagued our foreign policy ventures from Korea to Vietnam to Iran to Central America to Iraq to Sudan to Afghanistan-the-first-time-around. And if this sounds time-consuming or daunting, remember, we commit our young to risk their lives for a just outcome. Our responsibilities do not demand as much as that, and we owe it to them, to the families whose losses have already occurred, and to the world: we must not yield and we must not fail.

To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (1608)	9/28/2001 5:40:34 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

That is the pacifists' position, and it is evil. Scratch a pacifist, and you will find a Socialist. The one common denominator of Socialists and Fundamental Muslims? A hatred of Capitalism.

To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (1608)	9/28/2001 7:48:56 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Very noble, very brave, but I'd suggest a bit less of the stiff upper lip and a bit more of the supple mind. First, I don't know why it upsets you that there are people in the world that are not rallying enthusiastically to our cause. What did you expect? When 500,000 Rwandans were being hacked to bits by people who didn't like their tribe, we didn't declare war on evil. We barely cracked a yawn. If the Tamil Tigers crashed a few hijacked jets into Colombo, would we commit ourselves to fight until terrorism was vanquished? If Tibetan separatists did the same to buildings in Beijing, would we respond with "righteous outrage" and charge in with 100% support? The answer, of course, is no. To us, this is the clarion call to war. It is, in your words "the public execution of thousands of innocents, men, women and children of all nationalities, and the criminal assault on the peace and well-being of many hundreds of millions more". You say that because it happened to us, our people, our buildings. If it was somebody else, we'd be a good deal less concerned, and when we developed a response, we would consider our own national interests first. Why should we expect others to react in any way other than the way we would react if the same thing happened to them? Other countries will give support to the extent and in the ways that serve their interests, just as we would in their shoes. We cannot expect them to support us because we are right. If we want their support, we have to make sure that it is in their interest to give it. We also have to realize that some allies, particularly Muslim states that have large populations of fundamentalists, have to walk a bit of a tightrope when it comes to dealing with their own populations. Many people in other parts of the world do not like to see their leaders kowtowing to Americans; this is a situation that has arisen to some extent as a response to our own past actions. Many of these countries will provide very substantial support, but quietly, often while making a public show of resistance. Don't get too incensed by what you read, or don't read, in public statements. We are and will be getting a lot of quiet help, which is the kind we need. We don't need our Arab allies to contribute tanks, planes, or troops. We need them to contribute information: one good informer from the bin Laden camp would be worth more to us than several armies. If our allies can provide the covert assistance we need while maintaining a public show of standing aloof from us, they will serve both their interests and ours. This should not bother us at all. We have to be aware that not everybody in the world loves us, and that some have reasons for not loving us. That does not excuse or justify the attack on us, but it will affect the way others respond to that attack, and we have to be aware of that and work around it. This notion: ...all those who not only aid, abet and either overtly or tacitly support terror, including States who find this perfectly respectable, are our declared enemy, and we shall vanquish them, period. also needs examination. Are we supposed to do this all at once? Are we supposed to charge out and invade half a dozen or more countries, each with its own complex and dynamic situation, because there are terrorists living within their boundaries? That, frankly, would be stupid. Brave and noble, perhaps, but stupid, and at this point in our history I would prefer to be smart. We are not at war with nations, and in most cases we will probably not need to be at war with nations. Why go to conventional war, expensive and inappropriate to the nature of this conflict, if it is neither necessary nor particularly useful? We need to get rid of this hyperemotional puffery, evaluate the tasks we face, and select the tools and strategies most likely to accomplish that task. The nature of the task suggests that these tools and strategies are not likely to include large scale conventional military action. What you see as "hesitation" may turn out to be a very good thing indeed. If there are terrorist cells in the US poised to strike - and there probably are - we will not degrade that strike capability at all by invading Afghanistan. Those cells will be able to strike at us with or without the Taleban. Taking a little extra time and developing a strategy for removing the Taleban and degrading Afghanistan's utility as a terrorist base without a major commitment of US ground troops is not going to be the undoing of an American city. It may very well save many American lives and help us avoid some very damaging consequences involving our relations with other Arab nations. It makes perfect sense to enlist the aid of countries that have dubious records when going after the Taleban. We don't have the means to take on everybody at once. So we prioritize, select, and pick our enemies off one at a time, building appropriate coalitions for each task as we go. At the same time, we get on with the much more important task of isolating and dismantling the terrorist networks operating undercover in friendly nations. Let's not pretend that we are after all terrorists everywhere. We aren't. We are after the terrorists that are likely to attack us. If we can track down our enemies by enlisting the aid of terrorists who are primarily opposed to somebody else, we should do it. Why not? We can always turn around and stab them in the back later, when they have served our purpose, just as they will do to us if we give them the chance. It might behoove you to remember, also, that we have sheltered, trained, and supported terrorists ourselves, when it suited our purposes to do so. When Osama was blowing up Russians, he was our good buddy. He wasn't blowing up too many civilians, but that was only because he didn't have the means to do so; if the Mujahedin had started staging raids in Moscow, do you think we would have withdrawn our support? Do you perhaps remember the Contras? They spent a good deal of time and energy attacking civilians, with the full approval of Mr. Wolfowitz, Ms. Kirkpatrick, etc. We waged a terrorist campaign against the Sandinistas, by proxy, and we thought that a good thing, because it served our purposes. Many died, I suspect rather more than 6000, but hey, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, and we couldn't have another Commie state in our hemisphere. I am in no way suggesting that this means we should back down or reduce our commitment to this fight. I do think that we should speak less of good and evil, and focus on the reality of our situation and the means that are most likely to accomplish our goals while minimizing adverse affects on us. This is not going to be a war with a D-day invasion, with heroic mass assaults, with vast campaigns, armored divisions churning into action. It will be fought largely in shadow, and at many times it may seem as though nothing is happening, because the things that are happening will be things we aren't supposed to know about (and probably, in honesty, would rather not know about). That may disappoint some people. It may infuriate some people. Personally, I don't care. I don't mind if we don't look noble. I just want to win, and I want to do it as efficiently as possible.