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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bruce L who wrote (21299)	10/22/2004 11:44:35 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Bruce, you've written a terrific post that reads like a novel. In spite of the obvious learning that has made that post possible, the history you relate does not lead me to your conclusion that: I take this to be a dramatic validation of the "neo-conservative doctrine." The Athenian model spread because it worked: it empowered and energized the people as a whole; it made their societies dynamic in a way that FORCED other Greek cities to emulate if they were to remain competitive. There really is no reason why it would not work equally well in the Middle East. Similarly, I don't believe you've effectively rebutted my assertion which you characterize as: "(I) have a romantic... vision of a courageous Iraqi people, united in a jihad against the United States. (I) speak of a "hive" that has been riled, of people "who bleed and sweat their lives away," of Bush's disdain for the "power and pride" of the average Iraqi... (I) stated that if a Fatwa were issued ... to kill Americans and force them from Iraq: "... it would be a bloodbath and the number of Shiites that would take up arms would be remarkable." Let me begin by saying that while you allege that I am a romantic, I think you have romantic notions of your own. I note the many distinctions you make between the courage and determination of "free" peoples as compared to "barbarians and slaves." Of course all free peoples were once "barbarians and slaves," so the basics of human nature are not determined on ethnic or racial lines and any differences are likely to be cultural. But the real area of our disagreement lies in whether this history supports the neocon assertion that we can impose our will on the Iraqis and create a "democratic" model which will out compete the other nation/states in the region and force them to compete by similarly changing their governments or, alternatively, whether the Iraqi people who are "barbarian and enslaved" can resist our efforts. There are parts of this history that are instructive. The Vietnamese opposed to American intervention were extremely well prepared. As opposed to Iraq, there was a "government in waiting" that many Vietnamese understood and supported when faced with the choice we gave them. In Iraq, in contrast, we first removed all institutions and we have not allowed the clerics to assume control of even local government. There is widespread resistance, therefor, but there is no "replacement government" in the offing. We are, however, creating a ripe situation for a shadow government to form and we are "training" the Iraqis very quickly in how to fight an effective guerrilla war against the forces we can put on the ground in Iraq. Their effectiveness in creating casualties on our side and avoiding casualties of their own is increasing. This is a natural consequence of a war where they can choose the time and place of engagement and we usually cannot. So the question becomes, as you noted, whether they can successfully resist our occupation or whether they will fall into line, accept our vision for their government and someday serve as a model for democracy and tolerance in the Middle East? You are right in stating that, like the ancient Persians, they cannot "stand and fight" against an army of well trained, well educated and well motivated enemy soldiers. By implying that because they were "slaves" and possibly "barbarians" they will lack the will to fight, however, I think you are wrong. I continue to believe that if Sistani asked them to hundreds of thousands of them would take up arms against us. They might not stand and fight in ways that left them open to deadly missile and air attacks, or even attacks from our superior ground forces, but they would fight in the most effective way possible. That way would be to simply seize upon every momentary lapse, every moment of opportunity, and every small weakness to make it impossible for our troops to travel, resupply, protect oil lines, protect the puppet government we installed or otherwise influence the running of their country. Because remember that they don't need to defeat our army, they only need to defeat our mission of overwhelming their culture and priorities and supplanting those with our own. Finally, I still believe that human beings of all cultures have a strong tribal sense. How else do you explain the fact that such differing cultures as those existing in Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Chechnya and others have all fought so hard to prevent their "tribe" from being controlled by "others?" In today's world of commonly made small explosives with big bangs, that tribal sense can find it's voice in the deaths of many of the "powerful." The "is it worth it" question is one we should ask ourselves every new day as the facts and realities appear. The true meaning of your post is that, as in ancient Greece, we should out compete the "barbarians" and let them come to their own conclusion that they must emulate US or get left behind. That means we must sometimes let them try their own experiments first so that reality will teach them what our guns cannot. It does not mean that we should use our power to try to force them to accept what they do not yet desire based on the rationale that "if we build it through force, they will see that it was best for them." Ed