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: Dayuhan who wrote (43128)	9/10/2002 10:35:23 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There remains the serious problem of how we can accomplish this. Defeating armies and overturning governments won't accomplish the objective: the enemy is not an army or a Government, but an ideology. Can you make people stop believing in a religion by defeating their armies and overturning their governments? Will their belief become less fervent or radical if they are invaded and occupied? Not likely. I dunno, it worked well for Nazism, which had been pretty persuasive until then. I don't mean to be facetious about this, but ideologies that can claim victory are bound to be a lot more persuasive than those that can't. AQ and Saddam both racked up a lot of victories (at least, in their own eyes and the eyes of their followers) during the 90's. Wading into the ME and thrashing around with a big stick exposes us to a situation very similar to that which undid the Russians in Afghanistan We're hardly wading in, we've been very "in" Iraq since 1990. And Saddam has been proclaiming himself the victor. Do we let him get nukes and force us out, or do we stand up to him? and if so, when? Will a series of invasions and occupations make us more or less vulnerable to terrorist attack? I don't think we are contemplating a "series"; Iraq is a special case because of the pre-existing situation. I think a successful Iraqi campaign will be followed by a general reassessment in the Arab world about who has to be appeased most, the Islamists or us. My own suspicion is that the Islamists would be only too happy to see us wade in and start punching the tar baby. The Islamists keep hoping for the Arab street to rise and flock to their banner. But they are going to have trouble keeping up the story of how we are wimps who can be easily defeated. Now, we will just have to create a success story in Iraq. That will be tougher, but we certainly should be able to vastly improve conditions for the Iraqis.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (43128)	9/11/2002 10:03:23 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Can you make people stop believing in a religion by defeating their armies and overturning their governments? Will their belief become less fervent or radical if they are invaded and occupied? Not likely. Good point, Steven. One of the few new points made recently. The regime change in the former Soviet Union provides a broad template for the kind of action which is necessary. It will require, in my opinion, a means of convincing the Islamists that their path is fruitless. There are two ways to do this, namely, culturally and militarily. From a cultural standpoint, we have to convince them that our culture, with its openness and freedoms, is superior to an oppressive Islam which puts women down, promotes illiteracy, and is otherwise stagnant. We also need to engage in a few salutary self-corrections such as a return to more spiritual and less materialistic values, a little more modesty, etc. Nothing radical. The cultural corrections we need cannot be imposed upon us but need to come from within, otherwise there cannot be a cultural victory over the Islamists. Don't underestimate the influence our culture of freedom had in the demise of Soviet-style Communism. From a military standpoint, we need to be effective, as we were in bankrupting the Soviets through our increased military spending. Bernard Lewis's insights and those of lesser figures like Raoul Gerecht are 100% correct. Weakness in responding to Islamist aggression simply promotes it. While they know we are hugely powerful, they rightfully question our resolve to use our power against them. Every act of terrorism requires an immediate and powerful response. If our President says he will attack Iraq, he'd better do it. Otherwise, Saddam will become even more dangerous and we will suffer more terrorism.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (43128)	9/11/2002 10:21:50 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Will a series of invasions and occupations make us more or less vulnerable to terrorist attack? That is the question we need to answer. That is certainly what we are discussing here. If the majority of Islam was against us in the same way as the "Islamists" are, we would be in major trouble by attacking them. But the bunch we are up against is a small minority of Islam. How many, we will never know for sure. We know that the Majority of Islam has fought and beat them. These Governments that have fought and beat them are certainly not Angels. And we have supported a lot of them in the past that we will not support in the future. We have to predicate our actions on the basis that we can fight and beat them. We are not the Russians. Our experience in Afghanistan vs theirs points that out.