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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (197532)	8/15/2006 3:12:50 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A Self-Defeating War ___________________________________________________________ Editorial by George Soros Published on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 by the Wall Street Journal The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies. Five years after 9/11, a misleading figure of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several fronts -- Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia -- a war that has killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the world. Yet al Qaeda has not been subdued; a plot that could have claimed more victims than 9/11 has just been foiled by the vigilance of British intelligence. Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense. What makes the war on terror self-defeating? * First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims because terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths, injuries and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their families and communities that in turn serves to build support for terrorists. * Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups. * Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown, al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing attacks like the one foiled in England. * Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them." We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world. Taken together, these four factors ensure that the war on terror cannot be won. An endless war waged against an unseen enemy is doing great damage to our power and prestige abroad and to our open society at home. It has led to a dangerous extension of executive powers; it has tarnished our adherence to universal human rights; it has inhibited the critical process that is at the heart of an open society; and it has cost a lot of money. Most importantly, it has diverted attention from other urgent tasks that require American leadership, such as finishing the job we so correctly began in Afghanistan, addressing the looming global energy crisis, and dealing with nuclear proliferation. With American influence at low ebb, the world is in danger of sliding into a vicious circle of escalating violence. We can escape it only if we Americans repudiate the war on terror as a false metaphor. If we persevere on the wrong course, the situation will continue to deteriorate. It is not our will that is being tested, but our understanding of reality. It is painful to admit that our current predicaments are brought about by our own misconceptions. However, not admitting it is bound to prove even more painful in the long run. The strength of an open society lies in its ability to recognize and correct its mistakes. This is the test that confronts us.

To: geode00 who wrote (197532)	8/15/2006 7:16:14 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Wow.. so you actually can write a decent response?? I applaud your effort. In fact, I find it quite refreshing.. Hopefully you're the one who actually wrote it. And I actually can agree with some of your points, such as terrorism being "PR".. It absolute is. It's sole purpose is to convince the people that the current government cannot protect them from the terrorists, so it must listen to, and meet, their demands. But it certainly doesn't cause "few casualties". The majority of the deaths in Iraq amongst civilians have been caused by terrorists, not coalition, or even Iraqi, forces. And there may be a power vacuum for Sunnis, but the government is duly and legitimately elected. The UN and numerous other organizations have certified the legitimacy of the elections and their was a 63% turnout. Sunnis are now fighting for their future in their own land against what is now the enemy: Shiite militia. That is called civil war. Sunnis are a minority. They constitute some 20% of the total population, yet for decades, via the Ba'thist party, they brutally ruled and oppressed the other 80% of the population. So yeah.. they knew they were going to face quite a bit of retaliation for what they wrought upon the rest of the country over the past 50+ years. And now, we're seeing more Sunnis looking to coalition forces to act as their patron in negotiating terms of compromise with the dominant Shi'a led government. It will never truly be a civil war, because the representative sides are so disproportionate. The Sunnis will never be able to return to power in the manner that they once did. However, we have an interest in preserving the rights of minority factions in Iraq and preventing retaliatory oppression. I've advocated a fairly based distribution of a portion of the country's oil revenues along the lines of the Alaska Permanent Fund dividends. I think this is a CRUCIAL AND CRITICAL proposal that must be implemented so that... 1.) it prevents the governmental leadership from controlling 100% of the country's revenues from its natural resources and decreases distrust that people won't "get their share". 2.) it provides a sense of shareholdership in Iraq's wealth FOR EVERYONE, regardless of ethnicity and religious belief. Making every Iraqi citizen a benefactor of the country's resources would be a strong motive for putting differences aside and looking to their common interests. 3.) it encourages economic and political accountability, and decentralizes investment capital from oil revenues from state based, to consumer based. This is the foundation of capitalism. Empower the consumers in an economy and the government will have to heed to that economic power. Because face it, for all sides in the Iraq war, it's about oil, or more specifically, the money and wealth to be derived from controlling it. No one would really be fighting over Iraq if there were no oil there. The US wants to secure a stable supply of oil for our economy. The Iraqi government wants to secure a source of revenues to rebuild and secure its country. Al Qai'da/Iran want to deny this oil to the rest of the world, while enjoying the benefit of its wealth to fund their own aspirations. Thus, it's imperative that oil wealth be distributed in order to prevent any one part of the Iraqi society from using it as an economic weapon against internal, or external rivals. That is one of policies, IMO, that will assist in resolving much of the terrorism. It will certainly deflate much of the support amongst many factions in Iraq for tearing the country apart in order that THEY be the sole controlling element over the country's wealth. Hawk