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: Noel de Leon who wrote (112910)	8/28/2003 5:08:09 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Since the experiment has not been done neither you nor I can predict what would happen Actually it has been done, sort of. Amin just died in Saudi Arabia. Bokassa in France. It's the ones who refuse the offer that I'm thinking about. Saddam got several offers of refuge prior to the war. The most difficult, nasty dictators remaining are Magabbe and Arafat. I don't think either is going to take the early retirement option. Doesn't sound like an axiom that is particularly conservative It certainly is. Everyone thinks like that from time to time. But conservatives, though, tend to do it a lot. On the extreme end of the spectrum you get the kind of thought process that dominated in Engish ruling class in early 19th certury : all political innovation was said to be bad because it might lead to unintended (negative) consequences. More moderate conservatives like small incremental change because the outcomes will be modest and catastrophe less likely. Marxism, for instance, offends them because it advocates great change in many aspects of life which seem to violate observed human tendencies. They often tend to be suspicious of social programs because the outcomes often are so unforseeable and possibly destructive of customs (which, however defective, still work to some degree). As to Rumsfeld's comments on the uncertainty of the outcome of the Iraq war I would appreciate a source. Just about any press conference before and during the war. This was a very common form: 'I can't say how it's going to turn out. It hasn't happened, yet, has it? We hope that...' But certainly prior to the war the neo-conservatives gave the impression that there were WMDs which could be fired within 45 minutes and that Al-Qaeda was connected to Iraq/Saddam. I don't know about the WMDs in 45 mins. Did the US folk say that? The expectation was that WMDs would be found there. Even if they turn out wrong about it, I don't think that mistake can be laid on their conservatism. Most intelligence services seemed to think they were there and, in hindsight, there seemed to be an intention on the part of Hussein that folk think they were there. But the al Qaeda connection is probably likely. I can think of three instances: Iraq assisted AQ with their CW development in Afghanistan. Iraq tried, and likely succeeded, to set up meetings with AQ representatives and certainly assisted the AQ bunch up in the Kurdish territory. But I'm not sure what this claim might have to do directly with their political persuasion More important, no one ever said that the war would be protracted. So that indirectly says that the conservatives were confident of the outcome. They refused to say how long it would take to invade and defeat the Iraq forces but they were confident they'd prevail in that phase of things. But they were reticent about how long the occupation and follow up might be. This reticence appears well founded as they are dealing with an insurgency in part of the country. But these concerns are a bit off track, I think.. What is remarkable, coming from conservatives, is the audacity of the overall aim: bringing democracy to the Middle East! One man one vote, every time. Separation of state and religious institution.. Political headroom. Human rights. Checks and balances. This is not gradualism; it's revolution. Conservatives aren't big on revolution, you know. And much can go wrong. Fareed Zakaria just published a book outlining a few of the things that could go wrong. Contrary to what's sometimes claimed here, these folk are intelligent and know about many of the things that can go wrong, but they still went ahead against their conservative "instincts." Rather than looking directly at their "political axioms" it's probably more useful to look at the descriptions they found realistic prior to and post 9/11. Publications by this guy, Zalmay Khalilzad, might give you a feeling for that. Iraq wasn't just on the conservatives' agenda prior to 9/11 but prior to 1990 and it was also on the US agenda ever since Bush 1. I take it that you mean that almost every Washington conservative is afraid of the ME policy they themselves endorse. Yup. I'm sure it keeps them awake at night. I would say they only undertook it because they saw more radical alternatives as unworkable. for example involving the UN. I think they don't trust the UN very much. That is, a good number of UN members are opposed to democracy and what it entails and are opposed to US goals in the ME. So I expect the present US government would approach UN involvement cautiously. Also, most UN employees don't sign up for service where they may be shot at or bombed -getting the UN in too soon might be counter productive. I wish could give you a better answer but I don't have much time for FA discussion these days. By the way, one consequence of the Iraq intervention is that it's going to strengthen the US connection to the ME. In what manner this happens will be interesting. What cultural "infections" will pass and forth?