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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (13660)	12/11/2001 5:10:59 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, interesting differences and similarities between Palestinian affair and Afghanistan. I'm just thinking aloud here. In Palestine there is no one to talk to if Arafat goes but there is a government in place, sort of. In Afghanistan there are lots of people to talk to but really no government. (The NA bunch really impressed me when they turned up in Kabul with a skeleton civil administration). The situation in Afghanistan may improve now that there is a government framework to be put in place and the possibility of giving it real power, and the possibility of outside interference being diminished. Both Palestine and Afghanistan have had proxy wars. It appears that in Afghanistan it's winding down whereas in Palestine it's continuing. In the Afghan case the US was able to bring serious weight on the main proxy sponsors (particularly Pakistan, the main one). But what can undertake that function in the case of Palestine? The sponsors here are Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Israel. Apart from Israel, the sponsors are repressive regimes and two of them are "theocratic." Saudi Arabia has a literally medieval government and what is there to replace the Saudi clan, or who in that clan is capable of changing its direction? Iran is still in thrall of its mullahs. Syria can be persuaded, probably, to stop sponsoring but Iraq is Saddam Hussein and he can't be persuaded, only coerced or killed. Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia are riding the fundamentalist tiger, as is Iran. Part of a strategy is to attack the fundamentalists in the streets and mosques to provide an alternative local people can get behind without being killed. That's lot easier said than done, given how much some regimes have to lose from this. The fundamentalists and the terrorists they support have their ultimate source in the incompetence of the national regimes which, apart from application of their coercive power, are corrupt and don't otherwise adequately fulfill government functions - education, decent commercial and criminal law, useful infrastructure, etc - the fundamentalists take on these government functions and gain credibility even though the majority of folk don't like them. Where fundamentalists gain enough power they destroy the government functions, particularly in the areas of education and justice -eg Pakistan, Egypt. It would appear Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt are keys. It's going to be interesting to see what western and near eastern policy wonks come up with the next while. Challenge is huge. The source of terrorism, the totalitarian ideology, is establishing itself from Atlantic coast of Africa all the way east to Indonesia. Danger is huge also if such a policy is not undertaken, the "medieval obscurantists," if left to grow in power will eventually get hold of serious weapons and some of them don't care if several hundred million people are killed or starved to death, or new Saharas created.