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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (97480)	1/29/2005 7:42:59 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793755

I woke up way too early. 4:44 a.m. I do this if I haven't been getting enough physical exercise but have been drinking too much coffee. Always right around 4:44. Will go back to bed soon and sleep until noon. I love the weekends! Back to "war." I just posted to Lindy something about "Cold War Certificates" -- and he noticed that everybody who worked for the federal government during 1945-1991 is eligible. That's definitely a debasement of the term "war." No? This is one reason I really like Thomas P.M. Barnett. He is the exact opposite of the "to-a-hammer-everything-looks-like-a-nail" type of guy. He calls what we need to learn how to do better "Systems Administration." I call it "empire." Barnett hates that term. I know because we exchanged emails about it. I don't care what you call it, really, because to me, names are arbitrary. But I know that this is naive, that to many, nomenclature is powerful. If you call what we're doing with Al Qaeda "war" then people start warming up the carriers and looking for places to lob cruise missiles. The latest issue of Parameters, the publication of the Army War College, has an interesting anecdote that to me illustrates a classic example of "systems administration" as a solution to a problem that many would have solved with violence. "In early 2003 an Israeli agent in the Gaza Strip telephoned Mustafa, a wealthy Palestinian merchant in Gaza, to inform him that over the previous three months his son Ahmad had been preparing for a suicide bombing mission in Israel. Mustafa was told that if his son followed through with his plans, he and his family would suffer severe consequences: their home would be demolished, and Israel would cut off all commercial ties with Mustafa’s company. Neither he nor the members of his family would ever be permitted to enter Israel again.1 Faced with this ultimatum, Mustafa confronted his son and convinced him that the cost to his family would far outweigh any possible benefits his sacrifice might have for the Palestinian people. Since the start of the second Palestinian intifada in September 2000, Israeli authorities have prevented more than 340 suicide bombings from advancing beyond the planning stages. In addition, they have intercepted 142 would-be bombers, most of whom were en route to destinations deep within Israel.2 The war against Palestinian terrorism, like the war on terrorism more broadly, aims to prevent terrorists, including suicide bombers, from achieving their objectives. Suicide bombers are the most sophisticated smart bombs ever devised. They are well integrated into their communities, they are mobile, and they often can choose the best moment in which to wreak the greatest havoc and produce the highest number of casualties. Yet as the case of Mustafa and his son illustrates, the right mix of threats in at least some instances challenges the conventional wisdom that suicide bombers are undeterrable." carlisle.army.mil I disagree with the author that what the Israelis did was "threats." I think it was more carrot than stick. They appealed to the enlightened self interest of the father, who appealed to the filial loyalty of the son. That's one way to wage peace, maybe the best way.