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 (57389)	11/16/2002 12:10:02 AM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Steven, Well argued post, thanks. Are we fighting a war on terrorism or a war on Bad People? This is the crux of the matter. How is the war conceptualized. I dislike the 'War on Terror' because it is too abstract. It lacks the elegance of a slogan but I believe it is a "War on Middle Eastern Instability". It was OK when they were killing each other but now they are killing us. The mission of the war is to undermine the power of radical Islam and establish modern governments in the most important countries (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria) while protecting the emerging modernism in Jordan, Qatar and Morroco. A powerful anti-modern movement in such an important region is simply not acceptable as the world's economy integrates. In this context removing Hussein has an urgent logic. First, he is arming himself with weapons than will shift the balance of power to his favor. Time is on his side. Second, we mishandled the end of the Gulf War in a way that suggested a lack of resolve. This encourages the 'Bad People' to take more extreme action. Third, a pro-US government in Iraq improves our position against Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the nexus of instability in the Middle East and we cannot allow the radical Islamists to gain any more power there. Fourth, challenging Saddam encourages the dissent in Iran. Fifth, removing Saddam frees Jordan to accelerate it's modernization movement. The war against Al Qaeda is not a territorial war. We must kill the ideas behind Al Qaeda as much as the people behind it. A better quality of life in Iran, Iraq and Jordan over the next 5 years is the single best weapon we have against the anti-modernist radicals. If we offer the people of the Middle East a place at the global table and hope that their children will have better lives, then we can combat the ideas of the radicals. If 9/11 was Pearl Harbour then Iraq is D-Day. We cannot fight the fight until we have a beachhead. The hard work of the war will still be in front of us and most of it will not be military campaigns. Essentially your argument is that regime change in Iraq is too risky. There is merit to that argument but in war boldness and surity of purpose are needed. Paul

To: Dayuhan who wrote (57389)	11/16/2002 2:25:46 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Are we fighting a war on terrorism or a war on Bad People? ...We took one solid swing at enemy A, leaving him with a bloody nose but still fully capable of attacking us, and devoted our resources to preparation and justification for a massive attack on enemy B. I’m not convinced that this is smart. If I thought as you do that we had stopped pursuing AQ, I would be upset too. I don't think we have. What visible campaign do you expect to see? AQ has been rousted from the one open base they had; it is a shadow war now, dependent on arm-twisting governments of countries that support AQ, and getting police cooperation from all other government. And no matter how big a threat enemy A is, it doesn't mean that enemy B is not a threat, or doesn't need to be dealt with. Enemy B is getting back up as containment fails, if he gets nukes the balance of power will shift radically. No matter what we do, people all over the Arab world, and in many other places as well, are going to conclude that Saddam has nothing to do with this. Problem is that perceptions in the Arab world have rather less to do with what we actually do, than with what the Arab world needs to believe. You've read Rubin, can you deny his arguments? The Arab governments all know that Saddam is an awful threat to them, but their politics forbids them to say this in public. Anyone who does has broken solidarity and is a running dog for the imperiliasts, or Crusaders as the case may be. In private they say, why don't you just invade? Arab politics is wallowing in self-pity and paranoia, and have steadily used anti-Americanism to shore up their own illegitimate regimes. You take the Rubin position, it seems: that if radical Arab states are going to whip up support for terrorism and hate for the US, we can only accept that support and that hate as a given. I don’t think that’s true at all. One of the greatest potential vulnerabilities the radical states have is the relationship between their leaders and their repressed and unsatisfied populations. They are trying to whip up hate for us to keep their people from hating them, which, given the way their people live, is a quite natural thing for them to do. One of our most critical tasks is to exploit this vulnerability and put the hate back where it belongs, and the posture we take toward the Arab world is an important part of this. Personally, I think the best test case for regime change will be not Iraq but Iran, where the population’s restiveness is rapidly reaching the boiling point. If the Iranians themselves can dump their theocracy and put a better government in its place, we will have a really positive example – an example that does not depend on American military occupation - to display to the rest of the Arab world. So you like regime change in Iran but not Iraq? I think it would be great too. So does Barry Rubin, positive examples on the ground are part of his scheme. But (a big but) there is zero chance of an overthrow of Saddam without extreme military pressure, he has run too efficient a police state. Iran's possibly happy ending has no chance in Iraq without external regime change. So when you say we should "put the hate back where it belongs, and the posture we take toward the Arab world" is important, what posture do you mean? Falling back to deterrence won't do it. Stepping lightly and looking "balanced" on Israel/Pal sure hasn't done it; that's been tried. Our perceived weakness has encouraged anti-Americanism, and made it a cost-free option. Our new approach needs both the carrot (postive examples on the ground) and the stick (treat enemies like enemies). There will be no regime change in Iraq without US action. So do you want it or don't you? Vigorous military action has been the reflexive Israeli response to terrorism ever since Israel was threatened by terrorists, and the terrorists have not exactly dried up and blown away Hardly the only one. There was this little episode called "Oslo" you may remember, where Israel tried to give the terrorists a promised state. Compare 1993 to today. Terrorism was not a big problem for Israel in 1993, and Israel was in a much stronger position generally. Had Israel been allowed to talk with Palestinians in Palestine only, they might have even managed a peace, but no, the Arab League had annointed Yasser Arafat as the sole "legitimate" representative. So Simon Peres et al made a deal with Arafat. Israel (and Palestinian) casualties shot up post 1993, and never went down to pre-1993 figures again, not to mention the casualties of the last two years. The Israelis took a risk for peace in 1979, and won. They took another risk in 1993 and lost. Military responses to terrorism should not be "reflexive" but it is possible to have enemies against whom it is the only possible response, besides surrender.