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: tekboy who wrote (47481)	9/27/2002 1:12:46 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I suppose if I were confident that it would be done Pollack's way, I'd be in favor. How about a hint as to what is "Pollack's way" for those of us who don't have present access to the book? These are deeply serious questions of the utmost importance, and neither the pro- nor anti-invasion case is a slam-dunk. It all comes down (as these things so often do) to tough judgment calls about the relative risks and costs of various unpleasant options. Agreed. Paradoxically, I've become a bit more of a fence sitter when I discuss the issue than when I post about it. The ultimate point that sways me in favor of invasion is the prospect of Saddam armed not with one or two untested nukes but with twenty or thirty, followed by a successful above ground test. It's a world-changing scenario we cannot afford to have occur.

To: tekboy who wrote (47481)	9/28/2002 1:53:04 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

I'm mostly in agreement with your hunch. If SI's lamo search facility had some semblance of functionality these days, I'd be tempted to look back at where the first early '03 predictions came out, it must date back to at least early '02. I looked up Walzer's New Republic piece, I was somewhat surprised by it because of TNR's traditional line on Israeli matters. Maybe they consider the issue peripheral enough to Israel proper to break faith on the issue, I don't know. Link: thenewrepublic.com , registration required it seems. Another article I liked was this Friedman column from a couple weeks back: nytimes.com I think the chances of Saddam being willing, or able, to use a weapon of mass destruction against us are being exaggerated. What terrifies me is the prospect of another 9/11 — in my mall, in my airport or in my downtown — triggered by angry young Muslims, motivated by some pseudo-religious radicalism cooked up in a mosque in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan. And I believe that the only way to begin defusing that threat is by changing the context in which these young men grow up — namely all the Arab-Muslim states that are failing at modernity and have become an engine for producing undeterrables. So I am for invading Iraq only if we think that doing so can bring about regime change and democratization. Because what the Arab world desperately needs is a model that works — a progressive Arab regime that by its sheer existence would create pressure and inspiration for gradual democratization and modernization around the region. I have no illusions about how difficult it would be to democratize a fractious Iraq. It would be a huge, long, costly task — if it is doable at all, and I am not embarrassed to say that I don't know if it is. All I know is that it's the most important task worth doing and worth debating. Because only by helping the Arabs gradually change their context — a context now dominated by anti-democratic regimes and anti-modernist religious leaders and educators — are we going to break the engine that is producing one generation after another of undeterrables. Friedman's lack of embarrassment is admirable, and would be way out of character on the neocon front, where handwaving on the difficulties is fashionable. Friedman is somewhat more optimistic than I am on that front, though. The historical precedents for the kind of "nation building" envisioned by Friedman and Pollack are not altogether encouraging. The only one I can think of comperable in scope and difficulty is South Korea, maybe the Philippines. In both those cases the process was extremely long, and real democratization didn't happen until local movements forced the issue ahead of the interminable America policy curve toward "democratization". Pollack seems to have an unfashionably realistic view of the difficulties. It'd be nice if some of the national debate reflected some of that level of realism. The neocons seem to be more concerned with looking ahead to Riyadh and Cairo, which seems like a really silly way to play chess. One more set of refs for the road: I stumbled on this old but interesting survey while checking sidebar links on the current Economist coverage SURVEY: ISLAM AND THE WEST The next war, they say Aug 4th 1994 From The Economist print edition economist.com LindyBill might enjoy this as it goes into the reformation analogy at length. I can handle it since they cite CFR mentor in chief Huntington and eschew any mention of currently trendy neocon "on call" Ottoman extrapolator Lewis. The idea, Islam, ignores the frontier that most people draw between man's inner life and his public actions, between religion and politics. It may be the last such idea the world will see. Or it may, on the contrary, prove to be the force that persuades other people to rediscover a connection between day-to-day life and a moral order. Either way, it denies turn-of-the-century western conventional wisdom. This survey is an exploration of the misty territory of religio-political conviction. Somewhat oddly, in the end, they tie it all in with then-trendy communitarian ideas. Irony junkie that I am, I wonder how the authors would reconcile it all with current "moral clarity" guys.