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: SARMAN who wrote (202441)	9/10/2006 4:56:15 PM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Barnett: Five years in, remembering why we'll win By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT, tom@thomaspmbarnett.com September 10, 2006 Five years into this Long War against radical extremists, we measure our progress and naturally feel depressed: enemies proliferating, friends disappearing, the front seemingly limitless. So stipulated - regarding the war. And yet, this war's worldwide impact pales in comparison to ongoing changes triggered by globalization. We need to remember that larger context if we're ever going to recognize this struggle's successful conclusion. Remember, the Cold War didn't end with World War III but with 3 billion new capitalists joining the global economy. We were never ahead in that war either, but clearly we triumphed in everything else. Let me give you some examples of that everything else today. First, as globalization expands, it naturally invades those regions most disconnected from its influences to date. In effect, this struggle marches backward in time as we quell civil strife and battle radical extremists in increasingly primitive locations. So don't expect less violence as globalization permeates the Middle East and Africa. Entrenched elites and cultural fundamentalists will resist its democratizing effects, especially when it comes to women. Globalization brings networks. Networks are gender neutral. Provide such connectivity to traditional society, and you'll turn it upside down by empowering women disproportionally to men. Put most crudely, this Long War will see us liberating females through economic connectivity while killing off self-righteous young men standing in the way. Why do fundamentalists deny real education to young girls? Because that's where all this "trouble" starts. No modern economy has ever developed without liberating its women first with expanded economic opportunity, then social change (often related to birth control) and finally political participation. Second, we've got to get better at defining both enemies and allies in this Long War. A good example is our assumption that any religious awakening is a sign of increasing fundamentalism, when more times than not it's an attempt to reconcile tradition with modernity. Unlike fundamentalists who advocate disconnectedness from the "corrupt" world, evangelicals of all faiths work to connect populations across borders, generating self-help networks and empowering individuals relative to elites. According to experts who track such trends, evangelicalism is exploding around this planet while fundamentalism is declining. Missionary activity, for example, has never been higher globally, signaling this century will be far more religious than the last. Having said that, we must carefully disaggregate the perceived Islamic threat: not every Muslim is an Islamist is a fundamentalist is a jihadist. Many Muslims thrive in market democracies, not just in the West but in south and east Asia, where their largest populations are found. More specifically, Islamists want governments in predominately Muslim countries to reflect Muslim values, just like America's government reflects our predominately Judeo-Christian roots. But wanting that doesn't automatically make you a fundamentalist who demands civilizational apartheid with the West, nor does it commit you to violence toward such ends. If the Islamic Middle East is truly to embrace globalization, then we must respect the many compromises that faith will demand in return. The loss of cultural identity cannot overwhelm the economic benefits - especially in the short term. And that gets me to our definition of "the duration." This Long War did not begin with 9/11. As defined by the expanding global economy, previous iterations of this fight date to the early 19th century, when capitalism first took hold in Europe and America. Since then, as our model of markets begetting democracies has spread around this Earth, we have encountered new resistance with each age. First came the Marxists, who thought they'd strike when capitalism reached its inevitable collapse - as the fascists did later in Weimar Germany. Then it was the Bolsheviks who retreated in history to find a pre-capitalist Russia where they could wage their socialist revolution. Then the Maoists retreated further into the pre-industrialized countryside to trigger their peasant revolution. And now we have al-Qaida's Salafi jihadists, whose back-to-the-future fantasy involves hijacking Islamic societies all the way back to a pre-economic, 7th-century "good life." The more we explore this planet's future, the more our enemies retreat into its past. Judging the Long War strictly as war will always yield a depressing verdict: This killing won't stop anytime soon. But judging it within the context of globalization's progressive advance across our world provides us sufficient confidence that we stand on the side of liberty, faith - and history. knoxnews.com

To: SARMAN who wrote (202441)	9/10/2006 6:44:28 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes you did. Ask the CIA. I suppose you have evidence to present CLEARLY DETAILING the ties that you assert? Steve Coll, who wrote "Ghost Wars", was unable to discover any. And if anyone had the access to former and current CIA sources, it would be him. Yes, that's right. One of the ways that that unfolded was that we, from the beginning of our engagement with Afghanistan, never grappled with Afghanistan as a place, Afghanistan as a people, Afghanistan as a polity. We just were there to challenge the Soviet Union. So, we poured in guns and money but we allowed the Pakistanis to shape the political agenda on the frontier, to choose who would be the leaders of the resistance, what methods of assassination, sabotage, and guerrilla war would be acceptable. We essentially supported their agenda and reinforced it without ever understanding or attempting to shape Afghan leadership in the resistance that might be more consonant with Afghan national traditions, more friendly to the United States, and just more sensible all around. globetrotter.berkeley.edu globetrotter.berkeley.edu What YOU FAIL TO RECOGNIZE Sarman, is that Bin Ladin was ALREADY fabulously wealthy and didn't need to "sully" himself by being some kind of paid operative of the CIA. Peter Bergen, who conducted the first western interview with Bin Ladin in 1997, sounds like a pretty credible source and he says that OBL/CIA connection is "hogwash": cnn.com Oh there is a big deference. The Lebanese democracy was created after Lebanon independence from the French. Iraq is still occupied by the US. Like or not, this is how Iraq is viewed by Iraqis as occupation. Not at all.. Lebanon was occupied for 30 years by the Syrians, a nation that didn't even recognize Lebanon as a sovereign country. Even when the Lebanese people wanted them to leave, the Syrians refused to go, and instead increased their support for Hizbullah. I don't suspect that's the case with the current Iraq-US relationship. Were the Iraqi government to demand that we leave, we'd have little recourse but to comply. Isn't that what every one wants. Doesn't sound as if you do when you justify the destruction of entire countries.. especially democratic ones like Israel. Isn't that correct? Isn't it true that you'd like nothing better than to see Israel destroyed by the Arabs? Even if so called "Islamo-Fascist" get elected, you have to respect the will of the majority of the people. So you believe in a tyranny of the majority, eh?? No minority rights to be preserved? No freedom of opposition? Can the "will of the people" be respected when it calls for denying equal representation for the minorities? Democracy is not truly democracy when it is required to sign a political "suicide pact". Hawk