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 (57189)	11/16/2002 3:48:39 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If you mean a war against all terrorism, everywhere, I agree. If you mean a war against terrorism that poses a specific and serious threat to the US, I don’t agree. I think we can win that war if we keep our objectives achievable, practical, and sequential. We just have to focus on the real enemy, and choose tactics and weapons appropriate to the nature of the fight. Yes, I meant a war against all terrorism, everywhere. The way this administration is advertising the "war on terror," I have no idea who our real enemies are. It would seem a simple concept that our foresworn enemies are those who attack us directly or threaten our existence and interests. But this administration has either, intentionally or unintentionally, obfuscated the war on terror with the war against Iraq: a huge strategic blunder which threatens to undermine the credibility of our stated policy of regime change in Iraq and our ongoing hunt for al-Qaida. You don’t. Fortunately, we don’t have to. We are not at war with an ideological concept; we are at war with a small group of people that has twisted an ideological concept into a vehicle for their own personal ambitions. That’s a winnable war. While it is true that 9/11 has changed everything, the bigger picture is that the fall of the Soviet empire and the end of the Cold War presented new and daunting challenges to a remaining superpower with no equal rivals. And just as we were adjusting to our new role in a new world order, radical elements of Islam, including al-Qaida, were attempting to redefine their diminishing role in an environment where moderate Arab nations were gaining influence, the state of Israel was winning its existential war, and the evil Soviet colonial empire no longer posed a viable threat to Islam. The natural response was for the radical elements of Islam to wage a new war against the West, and 9/11 proved to be the perfect medium for setting the cast of characters to fight their jihad. Where I am most troubled is with this Greek tragedy set in the background of the Mideast, and whereby, I can see the trap set, the characters defined, and a tragedy unfolding. We know the attack on the WTC was a symbolic attack on American hegemony, but the underlying purpose was to initiate a war between Muslims and the West. The resulting aftermath has been a growing schism between Arab states and American interests. And of course, it does not help that the Israeli government is driving the wedge further between Muslims and the West, brought about by al-Qaida, by portraying their enemy as our enemy and their war as our war. So is this war winnable? It really depends. Are we intelligent enough to avoid the pitfalls? Invading, occupying, and reconstructing the entire Mideast into our image is just too tall, too expensive, and too impractical a solution with plenty of inherent problems. There is too much of an emphasis on hard power without acknowledging the benefits of soft power. The neocon ideologues and their poster child, the sunshine warrior, may believe America has to retain its superpower status, at any cost, but this ideology completely ignores the costs imposed upon a democratic society which value other interests such as healthcare, education, social security, energy development, free trade, global warming, and the list goes on.... This amounts to supplying your enemy with ammunition, generally recognized as a tactical error. And I think that is the bottom line.