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: paul_philp who wrote (60601)	12/8/2002 2:21:19 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<...The Vast Left Wing Mediocricy...>> Paul: I'm not sure I would classify many of those scholars of international security affairs as a part of a 'vast left wing mediocracy'....Some of them (like John J. Mearsheimer and Shibley Telhami) are very highly regarded. They care deeply about our country and feel Bush and his team should think long and hard before they invade Iraq -- its very tough to forecast the unintended consequences of an intervention. I tend to agree with the scholars when they say that 'The United States should maintain vigilant containment of Iraq—using its own assets and the resources of the United Nations—and be prepared to invade Iraq if it threatens to attack America or its allies. That is not the case today. We should concentrate instead on defeating al Qaeda.'

To: paul_philp who wrote (60601)	12/8/2002 2:22:45 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Vast Left Wing Mediocricy. ;-) I assume you mean to get a chuckle from that one. A very eminent list.

To: paul_philp who wrote (60601)	12/8/2002 3:11:25 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It WAS a funny line, and deserves wider currency, lofty indignation not withstanding.

To: paul_philp who wrote (60601)	12/8/2002 3:33:08 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Actually, it would be difficult--not impossible, perhaps, but quite difficult--to assemble a comparably distinguished list from the remainder of the academic security studies field. And these are generally quite serious folk, neither generally idiots nor necessarily generally lefties. Most if not all of Pollack's dissertation committee, for example, are signers, as are a number of his (and my) top peers. None of this means, of course, that their views are correct, simply that they shouldn't be dismissed casually. What I'd say is that their statement reflects the (small "c") conservative wisdom contained in the adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." That is, they are opposed to taking on the known costs and risks of war, occupation, etc., in order to avoid the potential costs and risks of the status quo. Since war is serious business, and history is littered with the remains of those who approached it lightly and gleefully, that's hardly an illegitimate position to take. In fact, in the abstract it's very sensible. The question of the day is, in this particular case, does it still make sense, given everything else we know? Anybody who thinks that there is only one obvious, easy answer to that question--on either side--has not grappled with the issue carefully enough. tb@thumbsucker.com