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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (201862)	11/10/2001 8:38:37 PM
From: Walkingshadow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

Hi TAW, Thanks for the post. I understand that there is a ton of technology out there being used that I don't begin to comprehend. I don't doubt the capabilities. I can only view what comes out of the mysterious technology box on the other side. And, mind-boggling technology was evidently of little value in preventing maniacs from flying planes into buildings and moving about from continent to continent unimpeded as they planned these things over the space of several years. So I can only ask: what evidence is there---in terms of real world real-time rubber-to-the-road results, not possibilities and potential or modelling or speculation---that this technology prevents terrorists from wreaking havoc against us? I see striking similarities between the complexities of molecular biology and the complexities of real-time geopolitical events. One I think you unintentionally highlight: we consistently underestimate the complexities before us. So, questions get answered alright, and mountains and mountains of data generated, but that does not at all mean that all of it or even most of it is useful. Much of the data is not merely not germane, but highly distracting---and the questions misguided in the first place. This is only realized in retrospect, but if true so frequently in the past, I see no reason to presume that it has ceased to be true today. << ...getting the folks over their to understand how we go about finding and attacking takes time. >> If the superiority of technology is the all-important factor, what difference does it make what they do or do not understand over there? Why should that have any impact on the effectiveness of the technology? << ....the Taliban are doomed. >> I would agree, and the end appears fairly close. I am surprised they have lasted this long, frankly. But even if every Taliban is killed and everybody painstakingly routed out of their caves and bunkers (no small task at all, IMHO), I can't see that the fundamental problem at hand will be significantly impacted, and actually it could even be counterproductive, by creating "martyrs" and a new and expanded fervor for "the Holy Cause." The basic problem as I see it---the full intent of a fairly small but exceedingly motivated group of maniacs to destroy us---transcends geopolitical niceties such as "borders" and "ruling parties." The Taliban just happen to be the most visible and outspoken supporters du jour. They have merely been stupid enough to openly support terrorism, and since we can identify the Taliban with a certain amount of real estate, and since we can go in and forcefully take that real estate, that tends to create the conditions whereby we can mistakenly conclude that we have solved the problem: we win the war and control Afghanistan. In the long run, this will solve exactly nothing, IMHO. There are many more supporters of terrorism around the world who are smart enough to do so quietly, covertly, avoiding identification with any particular geopolitical entity. This is the "smart money" of the terrorist world, IMHO, and a far more difficult enemy to deal with because the definitions of "victory" have nothing to do with traditional definitions and become increasingly difficult to define. I would favor the extermination of those terrorists and their supporters wherever they be, starting with Afghanistan and then Iraq. But to me, this is only a short-term solution at best. The only viable long-term solution to the problem that I can see is to disarm the motivation base of these people. A lesson I think that applies here is the complete failure of decades of intensive---and high-tech---drug interdiction efforts to significantly impact drug usage. In large measure, all they have accomplished is to increase the price of the commodity. As long as the demand is there, suppliers will be also. The greater the demand, the more motivated the suppliers. Attempts to impact the supply side fail to do anything about the driving force of the drug market: the demand side. Taking this lesson in hand, I would advocate attacking the problem of terrorism from the demand side of the equation rather than the supply side. If they don't hate us, if they don't see us as the enemy, then the problem disappears. How do we do that? Well, I think some lessons can be learned from the ways in which other former enemies have now been effectively disarmed. For example, Russia and China. In large part, political rhetoric and posturings aside and ignoring the assertions of those politicians who have been only too eager to stand up and take credit [deserved or otherwise], I see these phenomena as having a fundamental economic cause. We have forged economic alliances with them in such a way that their future becomes increasingly tied to our own. We have, in other words, created symbiotic relationships. It is very difficult to be enemies with a business partner upon whom you depend for your own livelihood. And presto! the threatening and bellicose political rhetoric evaporates, because it is fundamentally at odds with the economic reality---not because we have convinced anybody that their views are wrong, or frightened anybody sufficiently, or won any specific political or military battle. When was the last time you heard some communist or socialist official take a threatening tone when referring to the USA? This used to be commonplace and expected 3 or 4 decades ago...... This, IMHO, is the basic tack we must pursue if we wish to solve this problem long-term. You can get more out of a donkey with a carrot than with a stick..... But, as always, JMVHO.... WS