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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chas. who wrote (11367)	4/2/2004 11:00:23 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 81568

OK Chuck,no more "for public consumption" and now we can talk. I'll address your points in order. I agree that ONE of the tools we'll have to use a lot more extensively, and a lot smarter, is the tool of hands-on operations. It will be a dirty process that will require our "agents" to become an active part of the terror but that's the way it goes. You have to ask how effective will that likely be when the footprint of those that join in Muslim holy wars and are willing to suicide for the cause is hard to fake? Whether we can recruit enough people from that ultra religious culture and whether they are trusted enough that they aren't asked to don a suicide vest and prove themselves by blowing themselves up, is a tough question and one whose answer we may not like. I agree we have to try to find some way of doing it better, I'm only saying that we may not actually be able to accomplish much in that area, especially since they are as aware as we are that our intent is to infiltrate them. If we do have some success in breaking up and killing or incarcerating some terrorists through infiltration, will that break the spirit and the backs of the others? Much of the success we've had in destroying dangerous organizations has come about because when we have some success the other bad guys think, "wow, that could happen to me." In most cases that's a good incentive to slow down or stop. In the case of truly committed terrorists who are not only willing to martyr themselves but sometimes even eager, I don't think we can expect that kind of rationale risk/benefit analysis. We're talking about people who are passionate, who are not trying to gain material things but rather heroic status and the blessing of their religion, and who are willing to accept not just the possibility of death but the certainty of death. In other words, we're not dealing with Saddam Husseins, these Jihadists are much more committed and much harder to discourage and I expect that in an organization that is distributed throughout the world in separate malignancies that can survive independently, we will be pulling off a few lizard tails but not killing the lizard. Infiltrating with operatives will, therefor, not likely offer an effective method of putting a lid on this problem. We have to find a better way in order to have a credible chance of slowing them or stopping them. It's far too costly and far to ineffective to try to "protect" every rich target. There are just too many targets and too many ways of hitting them. So what's left? Continued.

To: Chas. who wrote (11367)	4/2/2004 11:17:08 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

...so what's left. Let's take a look at what's been tried in the past. The British tried the police force route to try to stop the IRA. They controlled the country, they spoke the language, they had agents infiltrating and they policed Ireland. None of that did any good. The IRA stopped fighting when they got what they wanted. That's one approach and one lesson. The Israelis tried another. They couldn't identify many of the terror attackers and their collaborators so they "punished" the whole population from which they came. They limited jobs, they placed curfews, they killed friends and family and they bulldozed houses. They also occupied towns and villages, put in checkpoints and basically shut down a whole society. The Israelis were not just trying to revenge their losses, they were trying to raise the cost high enough so that the terrorists would either quit or be forced to quit by the society that was feeding, arming, sheltering and hiding those terrorists. What they ACTUALLY DID was to throw gasoline on the fire and create an inferno of increased and committed terrorism that is today more entrenched and supported among the Palestinian population than ever before. That's not to say that history doesn't reveal effective ways to deal with terrorists. In those cases where there has been success, however, it's come because the methods of suppression were so severe that the locals aided in preventing terrorism. If we lined up a thousand Iraqis and shot them each time one of ours was killed or injured, eventually the Iraqis would either become our best allies in stopping terrorism or we would run out of Iraqis. I don't think that's a method most of us would like to adopt. so what's left...

To: Chas. who wrote (11367)	4/2/2004 11:40:40 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 81568

so what's left... The Bush people were onto something with their professed goal of recreating the Mideast in terms of more efficient and more just institutions to provide fairness and a higher standard of living for those that currently don't have much to lose. For most people education and a comfortable lifestyle tend to take the edge off of radical, suicidal and dogmatic pursuits. But you're right in saying that what we profess we're trying to do there will NEVER WORK. In Jordon we have an Arab society that is ruled by a moderate whose mother was American, who was western educated, who is fair with his people, who has elevated the rights of women and who WANTS his country to become democratic. It ain't happenin. They're not culturally ready and we should have known that we couldn't make the Iraqis culturally ready by pointing a gun at them. They, and we, would be better off to leave them to evolve at their own pace, settle their own problems and come to their own solutions. For instance, Iran is much better off having tried an Islamic system of governance and having seen the results than if we'd have stepped in and tried to stem that tide--oh, that's right we did try to step in there with the Shah, and got our foot stomped on. If you want cultural and institutional change it has to come from within, it takes years and generations, and no amount of forceful control will speed up the process very much, if at all. All cultures come to civilization in their own time and it may be that when the Islamic world civilizes it may find a balance and governing models that we don't currently foresee. So we can't "shine the light of freedom" and expect that culture to embrace it with "flowers and open arms." so what's left....

To: Chas. who wrote (11367)	4/2/2004 12:21:54 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 81568

so what's left... Here's where it gets interesting. Are you talking about what's good for us in the short term, ie a few years; in the mid term, ie a generation; or in the long term, ie, 50-100s of years down the road. Short term you can use force to take what you want and to stop others from getting what they want. That's the Bush way. In the long run, however, the world is becoming smarter and more efficient at doing the things that makes us the greatest military power in the world. In order to balance that out the rest of the world doesn't have to match our power, they just have to arm themselves with weapons that would make any rational country hesitate to use force aggressively. By using our power to dominate and take what we want, including control over energy in the form of oil, we are forcing another arms race with China and possibly others. Longer term we have to try to build a better world, not just a better America. We MUST promote advances in education, environment, population control, respect for the rule of law, and a stronger, fairer and more efficient world of nations, U.N.-like organization. In other words, we must advance civilization and, in the process, lead the way with our own actions and example. In practice this means that we step on those who step on us, but we don't interfere forcefully with those who have what we want or don't see things the way we see things. It's a long process that is complex, takes a finely tuned hand and requires the best of us in terms of justice, fairness, patience, tolerance and respect for the sovereign rights of other nations and the religious and cultural differences of other peoples. In the end it's either that or the fate that befallen all nations in history that thought they could use military power to advance their interests at the expense of less powerful nations. Nations that are now found under the heading of the "Rise and fall of the ...." You can call that "appeasement" if you want. I would call it the only path to peace and I wouldn't hesitate to use the full military power of the United States to clearly establish that what we voluntarily accord other nations and peoples through enlightened choice, we will guarantee for ourselves through the use of deadly force. Both the use of restraint in interfering with the choices of others that effect us economically and socially, and the use of force to counter the choices of others that interfere with our safety and sovereign rights, are consistent with the principles of civilized nations. Because, after all, if it's a continuing contest with China, Russia, Europe, the third world countries of any other peoples, what will prevent the billion industrious and culturally advanced Chinese or some other country from achieving parity or surpassing us and then turning your own rules against our children and grandchildren. Instead of creating the need for them to do that, I'd rather decrease the stakes and enlist the world in finding ways to resolve conflicts through international law and an international tribunal. At the risk of sounding foolish, maybe we can all win through wisdom and a realization that in the long run we're all in the same boat. That approach would, however, take a lot more tolerance, foresight and intellect than Bush and his team have displayed, and a lot more generosity, sacrifice, education and attention than the American people have exhibited. So maybe we better just take what we can while we can take it and try to find a place to light when things come apart in a generation or two.