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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (25671)	7/31/2006 9:10:53 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541701

I don't think we are in total opposition here. We both think there are some things that are new, and some that are not so new. I just think that the not new is just new pieces incorporated in to the old idea, not something fundamentally different either in a "long historical sense" or in the context of the relatively recent present (say 20th and 21st centuries). One thing that is relatively new in the long historical sense is the appeal to world opinion, and the opinion of the other side's civilians. In ancient times, medieval times, even the times of colonial conquest from the 1500s to the early 1900s, a smaller force wasn't likely to gain a lot of traction with scenes of civilian death. They might hide behind civilians anyway but the gain would not be as great. But even though that is really new in an historical sense its not brand new. The Vietnamese communists and others used such tactics. They might work even better now, but that doesn't make for a new type of warfare. that NYTimes article to be that Hezbollah has taken the notion of assymetric warfare to a new place, one in which it's less about specific guerilla groups engaged in traditional guerilla actions and more one in which those groups are connected, networked to use the author's phrase. The world is more connected than it used to be, and its not surprising that what used to be isolated guerrilla groups might help each other out and form alliances. Also they can go overseas and wage terror campaigns. But multinational campaigns of terror aren't really new either. From the original Assassins/Hashshashin to the anarchists and other groups in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Perhaps the problem is bigger and more connected now, certainly technology means the destruction can be greater (9/11 instead of an assassination or small bombing). So I wouldn't say "oh its all just the same nothing to worry about". The current conflict about Hezbollah isn't all that different from other nasty little guerrilla terrorist campaigns. Hezbollah also can make terrorist attacks across the world, but they won't help it win in Lebanon, and again such capability isn't new. Nor is it, IMO, a conflict in which the US or Israel is especially crippled in ability to fight. Tim