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 (56877)	11/13/2002 11:58:58 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Despite all that is said about Saddam, regime change in Iraq will not be a fatal or even seriously damaging blow to al Qaeda. This statement assumes that the purpose of regime change in Iraq is to damage Al Qaeda. That's not what Bush says, and that's not what proponents like Ken Pollack say. The purpose is to keep Saddam Hussein from getting nukes and imposing hegemony over the Gulf (and doing who knows what else with them too). Just because Saddam and Al Qaeda are both enemies, it doesn't mean they are the same enemy. Just because Saddam didn't manage to destroy the WTC, it doesn't mean that he is not really a dangerous enemy. The arguments for going into Iraq are not based on the idea that we will strike a blow against Al Qaeda; nor should the arguments against going into Iraq be based on this idea. The shortest term goal is to track down and eliminate terrorists, all over, by all possible means. The medium term goal is to reduce the heat level around the Middle East: chill the war talk, keep a low military profile, lots of negotiations and conferring, big show of multilateralism and concern for the process by which things are done This analysis omits some major players - the radical Arab states, who support terrorism as a deniable tool of statecraft, whip up support for it (aimed externally of course), and need the US as an enemy to distract their populations from their own failures. Is it your position that this dynamic does not exist? Because if it does, walking softly in the Mideast won't help. Not only will it be viewed as weakness, but the conflict will be stirred up elsewhere, certainly in Israel, forcing us to support Israel and making it impossible for us to look 'balanced' in Arab eyes (since to them we are unbalanced for supporting Israel no matter if the Israelis are truly getting blown up by the hundreds at the time). You say that we should deprive terrorists and radical governments of public support. I agree, but how? The radical Arab governments don't need public support, they have oil and guns, which suffice instead. And the "moderate" regimes are scarcely better. If they are less threat in themselves, the greatest public support for terrorists comes from those regimes where we have worked with the regime in place. The people all blame us for their corrupt governments. Even when we have been hands-off, they perceive us as all-powerful. It is hard to win when you are perceived as Superman; everything bad then becomes your wish and your fault. A lot of people whose instincts are normally conservative have concluded that the US has nothing to gain by conserving the situtation, so we are going in to do slum clearance on the worst radical regime, and see if we can put at least one good model of action on the ground. It is risky, but every other option is worse.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (56877)	11/13/2002 9:06:02 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Nice post, Steven. The war on drugs, of course, was unwinnable: as long as the demand for drugs is there, somebody will find a way to supply it. The war on terrorism is winnable, because terrorism is not profitable and the number of people willing and able to organize and manage it is intrinsically limited. I don't believe a war against terrorism is any more winnable than our war against drugs, poverty, or crime. I am confident we can win a war against al-Qaida--the terrorist network responsible for attacking innocent Americans on 9/11, but a war against terrorism is a quagmire. In theory, there should also only be a finite number of individuals, organizations, infrastructures, or conditions supporting the war against drugs, poverty, crime, or terrorism but the scope of our task is too broadly defined to have an effective policy response. How do you wage and win a war against an ideological concept unless you are able to eliminate every single individual espousing such ideas? And of course, attacking only the supply side of the equation does not address the demand side as you have eloquently illustrated with our war against drugs. I think it is suffice to suggest one possible root cause for terrorist activities is political dissent. And while terrorism may not be profitable, it is able to gain influence as an instrument of political currency. To date, there has been no effective policy response against terrorism, per se, and the Israelis have used every conceivable tactic to combat terrorism short of ethnic cleansing or genocide. Rubin has attempted to suggest, in his FA article, that Arab anti-American sentiment cannot be tied directly to our foreign policy in the Mideast. I am in disagreement for many of the reasons you have articulated. But as far as I am concerned, the Arab perception of American hegemony is enough to warrant a foreign policy review of our existing practices in the Mideast (particularly with our stance on Israel). Can we afford to continue and ignore the opinion of millions of Arabs, Europeans, and Westerners who have observed a fatal flaw with our current Mideast policies? It would seem most unwise. And if we have learned anything from the exploits of the Israelis in the Mideast, it is that we will eventually reap what we sow and seeding hatred among a nation of people in which we are dependent upon for our energy demand and economic growth (i.e. oil) is just plain stupid. Sometimes it is the perception which is just as important as the reality and if the majority of the world thinks we need to reassess our Mideast policies, it behooves us to listen even if we may not like what we hear.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (56877)	11/16/2002 12:46:46 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Steven, that was an excellent post!! (Wish I had written it.. :0) I agreed with 99% of what you wrote.. that is.. until you stated the following: Invading and occupying nations is a reactive strategy. It is also a strategy that has little real potential for striking a critical blow against terrorism: I believe it's a proactive step. The threat of invasion which, even should it not be carried out, has already created a major dynamic change in international institutions such as the UNSC. Powell was right to pursue the UNSC option, just as Bush was right to threaten to ignore the UNSC if they didn't do their job. It was a beautiful case of the UN being required to protect themselves from a President willing to render them useless. Already we've seen nations like Syria being "forced" to vote in unanimous agreement with the UNSC (never thought it would happen), lest they be seen as "out of step" with the rest of the world. And we're seeing increasing boldness in the Iranian opposition groups seeking to dismiss the Ayatollahs. And lordie lordie... look at how Saddam is finding himself forced to bow before UN power. Look at what he has had to do to try and prop up his regime (prisoner releases)... I believe that if Bush had not made such a proclamation regarding the disarming of Iraq upon threat of invasion, nothing would be happening now. We wouldn't have inspectors going back to Iraq under stricter terms, or with implicit military consequences for not complying. Bottom line is that the US is exerting political power through the mere threat of using its military power if all else fails. And the UN is complying because they are willing to do nearly anything to prevent the US taking direct control over the middle east and determining who rules and who doesn't. And in the meantime, through attacks such as occurred in Yemen, we're demonstrating that terrorists never quite know exactly whether they are safe in a particular nation, or might one day find themselves the target of a hellfire missile. Hawk