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: JohnM who wrote (60446)	12/7/2002 4:16:39 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

I just 'fessed up to Bill that I might be considered a "liberal hawk" You "Scoop Jackson" Liberal, you! :^)

To: JohnM who wrote (60446)	12/7/2002 5:22:06 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 281500

I can't see how you could be considered a conservative dove. In Canada I look like a fascist. What I will say is that I believe that, post 9-11; the indecisive and mediocre policy towards the Middle East shown by every previous US administration (and Bush until 9-11) is insufficient to the task. So far that has meant defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, a covert war against the AQ network and cleaning up the mess in Iraq. If these actions are under taken with the spirit to win I support them completely. I also support the Bush policy of calling the UN on their crap. An ineffective UN is no longer tolerable and pretending that the UN has some form of moral authority is not credible today. The very structure of the UN has turned it into an institution whose purpose is to tame American power. However necessary these Bush policies they are nowhere near sufficient. I think you will find that I am a frequent critic of Bush's lack of vision past the military actions. The "War on Terror" is a limited and confused metaphor. Where is the call to greatness in America and in the world? He has shown his ability and willingness to lead but he has not shown that he knows where he wants to go. I have patience. It may be impossible to think in these terms while feeling vulnerable to future 9-11 scale attacks. The country may not be willing to hear that message until it finds a new level of safety. I believe that the mission is to act a catalyst for the modernization of the Middle East. This does not mean imposing our (poorly understood) model of liberalized government and free market economies. It means inspiring the people in the Middle East to build a better life for themselves and their children. It means co-evolving with them. The worldview of the people of the Middle East will change only to the degree that our worldview changes. I also think that our political categories and biases are insufficient to the task at hand. The US has a long established habit of making purely tactical decisions, based on a very limited notion of self-interest, with regards to the Middle East. I think that the habits of thinking that led to those policy decisions and the political reaction to them are artifacts from the past that just don't match the world today. That leaves me in the surprising position of being pleased that there is uncertainty on how to proceed in Iraq after Saddam. There should be uncertainty because we have never faced this type of situation. I mistrust almost all instutionalized thinking about the Middle East today. The political parties, government agencies, media, think tanks and academia all are built on out-dated assumptions and I expect them to resist the new kind of thinking that is required today. I think George Bush transformed on the morning of 9-11 and I see evidence that he is answering the call of history. If that is the case, he will be very alone most of the time. I do see that rest of the world (Tony Blair excepted) has not met the call of history. The Democratic Party looks so disheveled today because the thinking they bring to issues today is pre 9-11 thinking. It doesn't resonate well. I see little evidence that the Republican Party has changed it's thinking either. By and large they are saluting the leader and hoping nobody notices that they don't know what they are doing. In 50 years, when that time's Huntington write the replacement to "Clash of Civilizations", they will be writing the history of the new global order. The first sentence will be: "It first became apparent that the old world order had broken down on Sept. 11, 2001". Hawk? Dove? or Crazy Dreamer? Sorry for the long reply. I have wanted to clarify some of my apparently contradictory post recently. Paul