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: tekboy who wrote (65183)	1/10/2003 12:15:57 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

re "Suicide From Fear of Death?" by Richard K. Betts Same answer as before: Yes, if we attack Saddam now he will strike back just as hard as he can, up to and including torching the Iraqi oil fields and lots of Iraqis besides, if he can manage it. So how will it improve matters if we wait until he has nukes? Do you really think he will be easier to contain or ignore by then?

To: tekboy who wrote (65183)	1/10/2003 12:17:59 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

these warnings will be seen as needless alarmism. That's what the are, TB. Plus, if Saddam can do all of this to us now, what would he be able to do with a couple of more years? He is proven to be a "Non-Rational Actor." Better take the medicine now than later.

To: tekboy who wrote (65183)	1/10/2003 10:20:45 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks for the Betts article, tek. I'm going to try to find some time over the next couple of days to post some thoughts on the Doran article in this same issue. Excellent article but one I wish to argue some with, on the framing. I could hardly argue the factual support for the arguments but there are some interesting elements in the frame to discuss.

To: tekboy who wrote (65183)	1/12/2003 11:14:36 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

Read the Betts and Doran and have a few thoughts. 1. I'm often trapped into measuring the merits of arguments on aesthetic grounds, for a variety of epistemological reasons. On those grounds, the Doran essay is an aesthetic gem (well, it could use a slight bit of polishing); the Betts essay is almost the opposite. Betts may have received editorial assistance for his essay but he really needed a good kick. Take this sucker back, organize it, clean up the prose, then we'll take it. Your point is a good one; just write better and argue better. 2. However, on the substance side of things, the Betts point which makes the most sense to me, given the obvious commitments of this administration to an invasion, is to ask why more has not been done to educate the public about the dangers of WMD in the US, if Saddam senses complete defeat. I assume their answer is a sort of political one; that if they did so, it would lessen the public's willingness to back an invasion (they are able to pursue it now because the public is unaware of the serious dangers). If that is the case, it's highly irresponsible. And treats the voting population in a childish way. 3. I tried to think if Betts was correct, that no two WMD armed countries had ever waged total war with one another. None came immediately to mind. 4. Doran's argument, very well written, well crafted, etc. (need I say this all again?), is fairly familiar, at least the portion that deals with Palestine as symbol in the Arab world. Makes sense. I recall Friedman has this very interesting point that Arafat saw himself as the symbolic incarnation of the Palestinian struggle, not as heroic guerilla leader (no serious actions in this regard) nor as governing statesmen (never addressed the task of building the infrastructure of a state). Symbols on top of symbols. 5. However, it's not at all clear that the dichotomy Doran poses is quite so sharp. As I understand his argument, there is no need to tackle the Palestinian-Israeli issue now because the symbolic status of the issue means it won't have any effect. Friedman's column this morning in the Times (Sunday, the 12th), suggests otherwise. And, no doubt, one could find a good many other such sources. That is, an argument that says whether such efforts could produce a settlement, the visible effort of making them helps reduce the anger at the US. So, on this point, Friedman and the like appear to be arguing the opposite of Doran. 6. The problem I have with the frame is that by focusing almost exclusively on the military issues, he increases the prospects that it is only seen in those terms. I'm more and more convinced that whatever the US does militarily, the failure to address the nonmilitary aspects of the ME, with nonmiliary means(no invasions to install democracy sort of thing), will leave the region in much worse shape, Al Qaeda and its affiliates in much better shape, and the US much more vulnerable. 7. Anybody have any idea why the Betts and Doran articles appear as a link off the international section of the NYTimes?