THE WORLD SITUATION * A LETTER TO MY SONS

To the retired attorney:

2) You've gotta be kidding. Envy? At one point or another, we've supported hundreds of, often times corrupt, regimes around the world. By transitivity, we've been the oppressors and enemies of virtually the entire global population. It doesn't matter that any one country or dictator could have maintained power without US support; those fighting always think "we'd win if it weren't for US aid."
Envy is an over simplistic, and quite frankly stupid, explanation. I'd imagine that there are several million starving Africans who are pretty envious of us. Mexicans are probably envious of us. There aren't many people who AREN'T envious of us. Dig deeper Sherlock.


*Spain got bombed, so they voted in a new guy and then pulled out their troops? I think you left something out there: the part where the old Spanish government initially blamed Basque Separatists for the bombings. Whether this was an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt to mislead, the Spanish people didn't like it. Can you say, for certain, whether the Spanish people ousted the government because:
a) they feared further attacks in Spain
B) they didn't appreciate the (apparent) misdirection of the government regarding the perpetrators of the attack
c) they didn't support the war to being with


*Its pretty easy to surrender someone else’s civil liberties. I assume, of course, that you yourself are not Muslim-American. Maybe you want to round them all up and put them in an internment camp? As a quick aside, could you even tell the difference between an Arab Muslim and Indian?

I’m pretty sensitive on this particular issue, because one of my best friends in high school was Muslim. He’s in med school now and committed to the Air Force for a few years after he graduates. That’s pretty much to be expected, since his father is a Colonel in the US Air Force. I just find it galling that Col. Hossain would be singled out in an airport security line, after devoting his adult life to the defense of this country, simply because of his physical appearance.

<quote>Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.</quote>

I think you just contradicted yourself within the span of 3 paragraphs.


*Abu Ghraib First of all, this wasn’t an isolated incident by a few soldiers in one place. There have been many reports of similar abuses in Afghanistan. And if you’ve watched Fahrenheit 9/11, you’ll see footage of very similar incidents happening at a location far, far away from Abu Ghraib.

The argument that they mistreat prisoners and are brutal murderers doesn’t float. Imagine if US troops were anything but humanitarian to the liberated survivors of the Holocaust. Do you think the line: “. . . but HEY, at least we aren’t gassing you like the Nazis†would look good? President Reagan spoke of the US as a City Upon a Hill that was a shining beacon to the world. What you’re suggesting is that the US sink to the level of despots and thugs, just low enough that the people of the world would still choose us over them.

Furthermore, these people in US custody aren’t necessarily GUILTY of ANYTHING. They’ve had no trial and no investigation into their individual stories. They’ve been rounded up based on US intelligence (which must be good, since our intel has helped our troops completely crush the Iraqi insurgency…) and anonymous tips (“will betray for some water and electricityâ€.) If they capture the guys in those videos beheading and burning Americans, THEN we’ll talk. I’m all for sticking THOSE guys in the US prison system, then taking bets on how long they manage to survive (I think the over-under on that is about 7 hours.) But until you prove that these people had anything to do with anything, its insane to even imply that “they had it coming to them.â€


Ultimately, I think its YOU who does not comprehend the seriousness of the prison scandal. It doesn’t matter if it was only ONE soldier acting by himself. Osama bin Laden and his operatives can now take these pictures to the poorest, most remote areas of the Muslim world as “proof†of the immorality of the Western world:
“See what they’ll do to your fathers and sons?â€

They won’t even need Photoshop.

 

So, we should give up our civil freedoms, and the moral principles our country was founded on, because otherwise we'll be wiped out by an external threat?

Yeah. Heard that one before. Quite frequently, in fact -- seems to show up over and over again, throughout history. Usually as an excuse for doing something horrible to a lot of people.

I prefer to continue Doing the Right Thing (or trying, anyway), and being able to sleep at night.

BTW, just to clarify: I\'m addressing this to the "retired attorney", not Sun_Tzu, who I strongly agree with.

 

My solution:

Since your solution seems to be “sit down and shutup,†I thought I’d try to come up with something more constructive.

The problem with fighting terrorists is that the terrorists themselves are difficult to locate. It is equally difficult to cut off their funding, and utterly impossible to keep weapons (guns, box cutters, home-made explosives) out of their hands. And while it is difficult, but not impossible, to keep them away from sensitive areas, defensive measures are at best, a stop-gap. The fight must be taken to the enemy.

Traditionally, “fight†means bullets and bombs. But in a war on terrorism, these weapons are useless. The typical enemy seeks to martyr himself. If, instead of suiciding himself on the enemy, he is felled by American bullets, then we have just helped recruit his brothers, sons, father, neighbors and 20 closest friends to the terrorist cause. For every “smart bomb†that missed its target in Iraq, we spawned dozens of potential terrorists: people who have lost their homes, families and friends, who have nothing to live for but vengeance.

Terrorism cannot be contained or put down by force. But it can, ultimately, be defeated.

Imagine a dirt poor, Afghan village, who’s only source of water is an American well. Who relies on American food and medicine for survival. Who receive American technological expertise to help improve their own crop yields, achieving self-sufficiency. Would you agree that an Afghan from this village is less likely to become a terrorist than someone from another village, who’s only knowledge of American comes from al Qaeda? How much cheaper would it be to provide food and water, instead of facial recognition technology and stealth fighters?

The key to this effort is that it MUST be non-secular. Any hint of Christian missionaries “corrupting and converting Muslim youths†would destroy the entire effort. Ideally, America and our allies would help fund schools too, but this might also invoke a backlash. I think its debatable whether schools would be a worthwhile risk: success means a generation of Muslims who would presumably be resistant to terrorist propaganda; failure would mean another generation lost to violence.


For anyone who still thinks that we “ought ta smoke ‘em out,†consider this question:

“Were they born wanting to do this?â€

If not, there must be some environmental factor, some setting in their upbringing that made them what they are. You can treat the symptoms for now, but there is no cure until you treat the source.

 

Keep it simple: To stop terrorism...stop being a terrorist! If you think the US isn't a terrorist, pull your head out and look around. Do the math: 4% population using 25% resources, of which we import the stuff the Middle east has, duh! We somehow have to get that stuff, we can't seem to conserve, so let's 'force' others to give us stuff...wish it were different, but reality sucks.

 

These people have no loyalty to the foreigners. Whatever you do for them. They will smile to you during the day and will not hesitate to kill you during the night. No moral problem, quite an opposite, better chance to go to heaven.

Do you know what's (by far) is the most popular crop there?

poppy

It's doubled since "liberation" from taleban and now makes Afghan the biggest world producer of this evil substance in its most refined form.

You are too idealisic and naive SunTzu.

What about new and much more serious battle this fall?

TAIWAN

US carrier group will be destroyed by Chinese missiles...

maybe.

USA, like any other empire in the human history is facing a choice: to kill or to be killed. Once you reach the point when you blink, that's it.

Make up your mind...

 

Guess if this guy was born a German, he would've blindly supported Hitler instead of our leaders. Or, born in the south before the civil war he would've been on the wrong side again.

Pride in one's nation is a good thing. Blind faith in other human beings is the religious equivalent of giving your money to the televangelists and thinking it goes right to god.

Making this war any more Muslim against Christian than it already is only supports the fundamentalist claim on the Muslim side that it is a war of religions. A good way to support terrorism is to make them think they have a claim to their plight, and their plight is real, not imagined.

-m.

 

If you really want to stop terrorism, starve 'em to death. That means no middle east oil importation, no exportation of anything to them - at any price.

If they want to live in a fundamantalist religious stone age world, let 'em. With no economy, and no outlets to the rest of the world beyond hopping onto a camel, they wouldn't be able to get out of there to do any damage, and they can hate us all they want.

 

Remind me again how we killed the USSR? How NATO armored divisions rolled across the great plains of Europe and smashed the Warsaw Pact, ending one of the largest and most powerful empires in history. . .

War is, quite simply, the last resort of thugs and barbarians. Do you realize that the 60 years since 1945 has seen the first time in all of human history that the major powers of the world have NOT been at war with each other? It only took four thousand years of human history for people to figure out that wars are fundamentally counterproductive.

I didn't say giving them food and water was going to win them over very quickly. Patience is a virtue.

Naturally, your thought now is probably: "but then they're gonna kill us tomorrow!!!" Well, the "we'll worry about tomorrow tomorrow" attitude was widely adopted during the Cold War, when we blindly supported petty despots around the world just because they weren't Communist. Forty years later, we're reaping what we sowed. In a war on terrorism, you can win every single battle and still lose the war.

...yes. And your point is? We're not exactly flooding that country with foreign aid and relief workers (the workers are mostly stuck in the capital since the countryside is controlled by warlords).

What exactly is your plan? More troops in Afghanistan? I'd love to see that too (at least until the warlords are broken). But the fact remains that we don't have the manpower or the money to put troops everywhere they're needed, and Bush has pisses off enough of our allies such that we're not getting any help. Unless you're volunteering to go to Afghanistan, or don't mind a jump in your income tax, I'd suggest we try and think of something besides military force.

That won't happen anytime soon, for any number of reasons:
1) they'll lose US trade, thus wrecking their economy
2) it'll start a war that neither side can win; the Politburo is risk-adverse, so unless we do something unthinkably stupid (and I wouldn't put it past Bush), the Chinese won't go that far
3) you really think Chinese missiles can penetrate the AEGIS missile shield and various other countermeasure in a carrier group? If they get shot at, it'll be an accident (accident or "accident")

And you're far too rigid and illogical in your thinking. A dirt poor nation with zero natural resources turns to growing poppy the first chance it gets? Is anyone surprised? With no foreign aid, no foreign technical support, zero foreign or Afghan incentives to grow "real" crops, and warlords controlling the countryside (much like the Columbian drug lords), growing anything that's NOT poppy is on the wrong side of the risk-reward nexis. There's a lotta ways to fix this; I happen to think a stick-and-carrot work better than a gun-to-the-head.

 

The present-day map of the Middle east was drawn by the West, complete with puppet governments - royal families with no pretense of democracy, a few of which were, not surprisingly, overthrown by equally-ruthless thugs. The West is fully responsible for the total lack of democracy there.

But I like your idea of not importing any more oil, even though it would make driving even a Prius a luxury for millionaires only.

 

I lived for a year and a half in Spain and still correspond with a friend there.

The Spanish people overwhealmingly opposed the war in Iraq. Aznar sent Spanish troops on his own authority, without ever allowing any debate in Parliament.

The Madrid bombing was so obviously not the work of ETA that nobody in Spain ever believed they had done it. Trying to blame it on them was a monumental act of political stupidity by a president who was desperate to justify licking G.W.'s boots. (Aznar was often protrayed as Bush's lapdog.) The Spanish population is so completely unified against ETA, that Aznar obviously hoped he could rally support by trying to pin it on them. A desperate act by a desperate man.

As for the people who claim that Spain capitulated to the terrorism of al Queda, only an American (ignorant of everything outside his own country) could possibly imagine such a thing! The courage of the Spaniards against ETA, and their universal willingness to stand up against ETA, proves without a shadow of a doubt that they do not bend to terrorism. They even have the courage to do what is right (get out of Iraq!) even though America accuses them of cowardice for it.

 

Yup, I'm all too aware of the history of the world's sewer. I'm all for letting them have their stone age value system all they wish, just simply isolate them from the rest of the world in the meantime.

Eliminating oil imports would not make owning a Prius a luxury. Getting all of these people who drive with their right foot and gas pedal planted firmly on the floorboards to slow down would make a huge difference. People talk about a 1.5 mpg improvement on vehcile fuel economy would be all that's needed. Well, not driving 15 to 20 mph over the speed limit would yield that improvement, with no change in current automobile technology.

 

I finally agree with Wolfman!!!! It is WE who are financing the crazies in the Middle East by buying their oil. OUR money buys the bombs, explosives, computers, and all the stuff they use to wreak havoc on our lives. Our energy policy has to change soon. We need to conserve more and develop more alternative energy sources here at home. Bio-diesel and ethanol are good choices. If you travel though the countryside, especially in the Northeast, there are acres and acres of uncultivated land just waiting for something like this to happen. This land is not used now because if is cheaper to produce crops in the flatlands of the Mid-West with the heavily mechanized farming style used now, but if this land were used for energy production, keeping the source close to the area of end use, it might be an economic shot-in-the-arm for a lot of rural areas.

 

Good point about Spain and the ETA, daniel. Forgot about that angle (that they've been fighting and resisting terrorism for much longer than we have). Realizing that makes accusations of Spain's "cowardice" seem utterly stupid.


Would our reduction in oil imports help though? I realize that its both easy to do and sensible. But if the US cuts down on imports (at least from the Middle East), won't China just gobble up the surplus?
-The Middle East will still be awash with money (and be able to fully fund terrorism).
-But we'll have out troops out of there.
-But the terrorists might still come after us, the Great Satan, only with Chinese money now (which, since they largely export to us, would technically still be US money : (

Also, for those of us who've seen Fahrenheit 9/11, recall Moore's assertion that the Saudi's control a massive part of the US economy through investments. If they pull that money, it would be catastrophic to the US economy. I wonder if Moore was implying that our government and major corporate leaders are hesitant to push for energy independence because they fear a retaliatory financial move by the Saudis.

 

I was wondering, were there a lot of civil wars during the reign of the Ottoman Empire? As I understood it, the Ottoman Empire was amazingly tolerant for its time.

I agree with daniel that some of the problems of the Middle East, like Africa, stem from the creation of nations by European powers. Granted, these tribes and ethnic groups would probably still be going at each other even if the borders were drawn differently. But maybe it would be a little (just a little) better.

 

The Saudis not only own big chunks of the US economy, they also hold astronomical quantities of US Treasury notes. If they were to sell off these notes, the price would plumet and the US would have to pay much higher interest rates to raise money.

Our government (read: G.W.) has chosen to incur the greatest national debt in history, and must pay interest on that debt. As the notes come due, new money must be borrowed at market rates. As long as the investors (including the Saudis) are willing to roll over that debt, we can limp along. But whenever they decide to pull out, we are flat out screwed. They've got us by the short hairs, plain and simple. And all because of our addiction to oil.

As for China, they may not be importing a lot of cars now, but it's only a question of time. And it's also only a question of time before they use up their own reserves of oil. With luck the crunch won't come in my lifetime. I'm 56 with a family history of heart disease and bad cholesterol, so maybe I'll luck out and die before the party ends.

And Sun__Tzu is right about the Ottoman empire. All religions were tolerated and got along, or at least left each other alone. It was only when the Ottoman empire fell and Britain drew the national boundaries and installed dictators to its liking that the trouble began.