SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Maurice Winn who wrote (124049)1/30/2004 5:19:58 PM
From: Rascal  Respond to of 281500
 
They have turned on him already.

Scott Ritter on CNN. Wolf asking how he feels about vindication.

Rascal @Breathless.com



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (124049)1/30/2004 5:21:17 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
Thoughtful essay, discussing certain cultural differences, of the sort that Jacob's Manichean (& quite self-serving, I might add) outlook simply cannot grasp:

Interesting Times: Life is many things
By SAUL SINGER

I thought about my brother Alex this week, but not in circumstances I have known in the 17 years since his death. For all those years, I have focused on Alex's life, not on how he died in battle on a rocky hilltop in Lebanon, and even less on the terrorists who shot him.

This week's prisoner deal, however, made the issue unavoidable for my family and a number of others who lost soldiers in Lebanon. Among the released prisoners was Anwar Yassin, who had another 13 years to serve of his 30-year sentence for killing Alex Singer, Ronen Weisman, and Oren Kamil on September 15, 1987.

The surprise introduction of a personal element has not helped crystallize my muddled views on the deal. A pundit's job is to make tricky cost-benefit analyses, but even before I knew Alex's killer was in the mix, my calculator had short-circuited. How to compare the concrete freedom of one Israeli, even one who may have been kidnapped under circumstances partly of his own making, against the potential victims of unrepentant released terrorists? What weight should be given to the injustice that Yassin, 36, will be given a hero's welcome, and has a whole life ahead of him?

I am comforted by the fact that the price that so many Israelis have found expensive is regarded by Palestinians to be cheap. Some analysts found Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah to be more defensive than triumphant, and have noted that most of the Palestinians were small fry on the terror ladder, sprung only a short time before their scheduled release.

Yet while I find the morality and advisability questions to be murky, one message is not: the vast contrast between the value placed on human life. Prisoner deals represent a rare and stark quantification of the human value gap.

The same imbalance that horrifies us says something profound: Alex's killer may be a hero in his home town, but he was worth on the order of 1/400th of one Israeli's freedom. The reason we have to trade so many for so few is that we value human life and freedom differently.

To our enemies, this is precisely our weakness and their chief asset. It is no accident that the suicide bomber is the emblematic weapon of the struggle of our age. Each such bombing repeats the question, literally in our faces: Can a society that loves life beat one that celebrates death? Al-Qaida and its groupies are explicit about this. "We know that you are still deluded by your power and think that your fortresses and destroyers and aircraft carriers will protect you. ... these are worth nothing in our eyes. ... we can face you one-on-one and make you taste the despair of those who have put their faith in this world," said one bin Laden mouthpiece.

The jihadis are right that we are more vulnerable than they. Our societies are wide open, and every prick hurts. As the aggressor, they automatically enjoy the initiative and can always choose the softest target, be it the Red Cross in Iraq, vacationers in Bali, or a cafe in Jerusalem.
Ho Chi Minh said to the French in the 1940s, "You can kill 10 of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds you will lose and I will win." Or as Henry Kissinger said, if guerrillas do not lose, they win; if the defenders do not win, they lose.

Today's jihadis may seem even more invincible than yesterday's guerrillas, who were ruthless but whose goals included staying alive. But increased asymmetry does not just cut in the jihadis' favor. In the end, the jihadis are not just up against free governments, which may be weak, but the human will to live, which is strong.

It would be a mistake to mirror-image the West's this-world, life-affirming orientation on more fatalistic cultures. We should not assume that all young Muslims are secretly pining for Western freedom and prosperity. But neither should we assume that the jihadis' death cult has spread within its own culture past the point of no return.

Loving death is not alien to all cultures, but it is alien to all life. Nor does loving life necessarily negate a willingness to sacrifice it.

"Life is many things. It is fragile, beautiful, full of opportunity to create and improve our world," Alex wrote from IDF officers' school to an American friend. "But it is also short. To kill, in the most extreme cases, can be just. There are more important things than one life," my brother said.

Alex loved life, but he was willing to die to save lives - as he did when he stopped Yassin from fulfilling the murderous mission that captured documents showed he had planned to carry out in Israel.

The forces of life have infinitely more untapped power than the forces of death. The jihadis' real theory of victory is not based on the West's fear of death but on our naivete and false sense of security. It is these, not our love of life, that must be overcome.
jpost.com



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (124049)1/30/2004 6:27:56 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
<I quite like the idea of being a citizen of Earth>

Europe is showing the way. One by one, the Community is acquiring the attributes (and loyalty) that used to go to the nation-states. Regulations are made in Brussels, instead of Berlin or London. The common currency is a powerful unifier, since the power to make money is (like the power to make war) at the core of a nation-state's power. The borders are dissolving. It's only a small step, to scale up the EU from continental to global.

When a NUN is created, it's going to look a lot like the EU, except bigger. It will not be small and elegant. It will be unwieldy and capricious, it will have a million obscure rules, and a million functionaries to enforce them. You won't like it, purist that you are. It takes Big Government to tame Big Business.

I see what happens, when Little Government meets Big Business. Here in Alaska, at every negotiation, the big oil companies (based in Houston and London and elsewhere) run rings around the locals. Exxon and BP can always bring more money, more lawyers, more lobbyists, more hired-gun scientists, than anything the Alaska State government has. Any enforcement of any environmental regulation, or any regulation at all, must be done by the Feds, because the State government can be counted on to roll over and play dead.

Your global citizenship is just a dreamy ideal, until there is a global government to give it tangible meaning. List the things you want your NUN to do, and then make realistic estimates of the funding and manpower it'd take to do it. Just the single task of inspecting everywhere for nuclear and biological weapons will require a huge organization. Do this honestly, and you'll see that Big Government is the means to the ends you want.