How we should fight the war on terror.

[Backtothemac]

The war on terror. There is a bit of laughter that should come with that statement. As the last three years have unfolded, and the war, which really started over 20 years ago has developed, and as I have had time to view it, my opinion is as follows.

The war is not a winable war. The reason for that is that it is not a traditional war. Here is the problem. How do you win the opinions of those that would kill you. You have two options. Either bow to what they want, or kill them. But the problem is that by killing them, you are only going to give them power. Martyr status. Thus begins a never ending cycle that will continue until the end of time. Example: Israel. They are in a cycle with the palistinians that will never end. There cannot, and will not be peace until both sides agree to live in peace. Madmen do not make such sanctions without political gain. So, both sides have to be viewed as the victor in their minds, and ideologies. It cannot happen.

So, now that the US has been fully brought into the conflict, we are at a crossroads. I have long contended that you must kill the terrorist before they kill you, and in some cases, that is true. But it cannot be a blanket statement that applies to every situation. Example. Say we knew about 9/11. Them we should arrest, or kill those who are going to go through with the plot beforehand. But, should we really go looking for them?

That is the problem that we have now. How do we conduct a war that was forced on us, and yet we continue to force? What is Iraq really. Well, here is my opinion. Iraq is a diversion in a classic sense. It is a place to fight the war, were our civilians will not suffer. With a goal of democracy. The notion that a thriving democracy will lead to others in the region through envy? Reality is that by fighting the Iraq war, we have given the terrorists a haven in which to conduct offensive operations against our military, not our civilians. In some ways this is briliant to protecting the home land, and in others, it is insanity.

We cannot use other countries civilians so that ours are protected. Reguardless of the notion of WMD's, terror links, etc. Iraq was chosen because the initial phase of the war would be simple. An easy enemy to humiliate on the field of battle. The country would then serve as a theater to fight the terroists on "their soil".

The underlying problem is that more, and more are coming. An endless drove of those that hate this country. So, how do we stop it. How do we end this war.

First. We have to leave Israel's fail policies and adopt those of common sense. We cannot blindly follow their whims and be the only power in the world that stands by them. Thus, we must force them to be adopted with the palistinians. We must stand by the UN and enforce the sanctions that have been placed on Israel. We must stand by the palistians and let them know that we will work for them, and Israel. There can be a forced peace if Israel thinks we will leave their side. Futhermore, by enforcing a peace, the radical sects of Islam will view us differently. If we force Israel into adopting a Palistinian state, things will change.

Second. We must remove the debt of poorer countries through the IMF. This has started to happen, but it cannot be words, it has to be reality. We have to adopt a strategy of appeasement. I hate to say it, but money can be a powerful friend, and we have plenty of it.

Third. We have to get out of Iraq in conjuction with the Israeli move. We have to get that country back into the hands of Iraqi's. We have to do it quickly, and it has to be in conjunction with the goal in Israel.

Fourth. We have to secure this country. I am not saying that we have to loose freedoms, but we can secure the boarders, and ports. With technology today, do you really think that we cannot keep those out of this country that we want to keep out? We know more than people think we do.

Fifth. We have to divert funds. 200 billion on Iraq is insane. That 200 billion being put into humanitarian efforts would change the worlds opinion of this country. Thus, if attacked again, it would truely be a world effort answering the call of the United States.


What do you think?

[zimv20]

bttm -- you're pretty spot on, imo. the motivations for terror must be removed, just as the way to fight crime in the US is to improve the living conditions for the disenfranchised.

like crime, terrorist methods can never be completely wiped out. but it can be minimized.

in addition to what you're advocating, i'll add that the US has to remove its nose from others' affairs even more, including making foreign policy decisions based on oil.

the US must -- asap -- make a serious effort at reducing its dependence on oil (it's america's drug). massive investment in alternative fuels and energy efficiency (better CAFE standards, for example) will not only provide a boost to the economy, it'll help create the kinds of high-tech jobs this country could use right now.

additionally, there MUST be better cooperation among first world nations to improve the conditions everywhere else in the world. pissing off allies and taking a me-first / we're-always-right attitude is at cross purposes w/ that spirit of cooperation (to put it mildly).

finally, if the US wants the world to respect it and hold high its self-proclaimed freedom and democratic values, it'd better show that actions speak louder than words. so i say call off this ************ non-POW status, sign up for the ICC, honor the ABM treaty and allow full UN and Red Cross access to military prisons. and get back in good graces w/ the UN -- we need the rest of the world.

[toontra]

I think that everything you say makes complete sense.

You and I have had differences over the past years over many aspects of the Iraq war, and terrorism in general. That makes it all the more gratifying to hear you express your dissatisfaction with the current US policy, and further, to propose some really positive ideas for future progress in world security & prosperity.

I have to ask, what was the turning point for you? For a long while it seemed to me that you were supporting US policy in the Iraq war. What changed?

[Backtothemac]

I think that everything you say makes complete sense.

You and I have had differences over the past years over many aspects of the Iraq war, and terrorism in general. That makes it all the more gratifying to hear you express your dissatisfaction with the current US policy, and further, to propose some really positive ideas for future progress in world security & prosperity.

I have to ask, what was the turning point for you? For a long while it seemed to me that you were supporting US policy in the Iraq war. What changed?

Well, I supported the idea of going in because in the past I worked in the government and saw much of the intel so I really thought that Saddam was in possesion of the hords of weapons that the world thought he had. We know now that he either did not have them or got rid of them. I think the turning point was listening to Kerry and Bush. Neither of them has any clue as to how to conduct the war on terror. When Kerry talks to pro war groups he is hawkish, and when he talks to anti-war groups he is a dove.
Bush, well, he keeps being Bush. I really think he thought it would be better to fight the war in Iraq instead of here. But, I don't like the policy, and I think we can do better.

[zimv20]

WWhen Kerry talks to pro war groups he is hawkish, and when he talks to anti-war groups he is a dove.
Bush, well, he keeps being Bush. I really think he thought it would be better to fight the war in Iraq instead of here. But, I don't like the policy, and I think we can do better.
we can definitely do better. the sad thing is, many of the things mentioned above would brings cries of "appeasement!", and there's something odd about americans and their need to "win" and "kick ass". it's in the national psyche, and unless we can get past that and invest in ideas such as cooperation, humility and compromise, it will be our undoing.

[Backtothemac]

we can definitely do better. the sad thing is, many of the things mentioned above would brings cries of "appeasement!", and there's something odd about americans and their need to "win" and "kick ass". it's in the national psyche, and unless we can get past that and invest in ideas such as cooperation, humility and compromise, it will be our undoing.

Well, let me say this. Bin Laden, yes, I would love to "kick ass" on Bin Laden. However, in the grand scheme of things, we need to change tactics in order to be successful.

[zimv20]

Well, let me say this. Bin Laden, yes, I would love to "kick ass" on Bin Laden.
no doubt.

i'm thinking of such things as killing tens of thousands of iraqis, which, to many, is retribution for 9/11. as robert mcnamara points out in Fog of War, proportionality should be a guideline in war.

[Zaid]

no doubt.

i'm thinking of such things as killing tens of thousands of iraqis, which, to many, is retribution for 9/11. as robert mcnamara points out in Fog of War, proportionality should be a guideline in war.

Especially since Iraq had nothing to with 9/11.

But i suppose to many it's ok, because they're arab (even though not all of them are), they have brown skin and funny names, and they live far way.
(OK maybe i'm being a bit cynical)

[Mike Teezie]

Especially since Iraq had nothing to with 9/11.

But i suppose to many it's ok, because they're arab (even though not all of them are), they have brown skin and funny names, and they live far way.
(OK maybe i'm being a bit cynical)

No, you are pretty much spot on. Where I live, when I ask people, "Why are we in Iraq?"

THe most common answer I get?

"they bombed us man! SOMEbody has to take the terrorists out."

[mischief]

The war on terror. There is a bit of laughter that should come with that statement. As the last three years have unfolded, and the war, which really started over 20 years ago has developed, and as I have had time to view it, my opinion is as follows.

The war is not a winable war. The reason for that is that it is not a traditional war. Here is the problem. How do you win the opinions of those that would kill you. You have two options. Either bow to what they want, or kill them. But the problem is that by killing them, you are only going to give them power. Martyr status. Thus begins a never ending cycle that will continue until the end of time. Example: Israel. They are in a cycle with the palistinians that will never end. There cannot, and will not be peace until both sides agree to live in peace. Madmen do not make such sanctions without political gain. So, both sides have to be viewed as the victor in their minds, and ideologies. It cannot happen.

(To save space; Snip)

200 billion on Iraq is insane. That 200 billion being put into humanitarian efforts would change the worlds opinion of this country. Thus, if attacked again, it would truely be a world effort answering the call of the United States.


What do you think?

I applaud your effort B. If you can come to this conclusion as a somewhat hawkish conservative, there is hope for the rest yet. ;)

It can be effectively argued that the provocative attack of 09/11/2001 was, in fact designed to bring this centuries-old conflict back to open warfare. Why? Because the far-right Islamists have a small contingent of truly insane Jyhadis. These are the Muslim equivalent of the KKK or WAR groups here in the 'States. The difference between our hate groups and there's is fundamental and profoundly more dangerous.

The hate groups in this country thrive in the poorest and least educated regions with the least telecommunications available to keep them in touch with the realities of the outside world. However, they are still more or less within the structures of this society with Rule of Law, etc.

Contrast this with the Hate Groups of the third world and thing get far more grim. In third world countries even the basic levels of literacy and education found in the most backwater places in the USA evaporate. Prayers are often recited by rote over a page whose image has been memorized as being the one that goes with the prayer. In these places even the simplest infrastructure of sanitation, water, heat, glass windows are absent, let alone tellecom. These are places where Rule of Law is as alien a concept as breathing Ammonia Gas would be to us westerners. Rule of Force, backed by fannatical and perverted religious doctrine are the norm. It is in this environment that Hatred and Despiration can be harnessed into Terrorism.

The only way to halt a war based on hatred as old as civilization itself is to nurture those places that hate us most. It sounds insane but it is the only way. North Korea must have pressure applied. But that pressure must come from within. The psi-ops leaflet campaigns used in recent conflicts have proven very effective, as were the food-drops. The days of winning by force of arms are gone. We have civilized all those who were once colonies with resources the West wanted. Now we are left with the consequences of ignoring the places that had nothing worth stealing.

We must find a ballance between compassion and Force. That ballance will have to be based both on securing the USA through more coherent, (not more draconian) Law Enforcement; overhauling the flow of information through the Federal and State systems; Implementing a true Federal level Universal ID; linking the Judicial databases of our allies with that of our own including direct links to Mexican and Canadian Motor Vehicle registries. We must choke out international drug and human-trafficking cartels through legalizing and regulating the trade of illicit substances and prostitution. We must pass more coherent gun laws that regulate NOT BAN sales, licensing and ownership so the illicit trade of weapons can be stemmed.

All these things and more must be done AND SOON to avoid being drawn into committing a form of defensive Genocide our society will not easily stomach.

All of these things require a level of leadership, charisma in the presidency and national unity not seen since WW2. We must be one nation and we must act compassionately abroad to bring the 3rd world on par with newly emerging nations and those who are just now coming of age. We can no longer afford to ignore those who have little to offer us in resources because they have found a coherent vent for their frustration in the oldest feud in recorded history.

We must cut Israel loose to survive on it's own. The arguement between the tribes of Israel and the tribes of trans-jordan/Syria goes back to the dawn of recorded history and cannot be settled by outsiders. The nations of the area must settle it on their own or no peace is possible. This alone would cut reruiting by Jyhadi extremists immediately and measurably.

We must demand the same elevation of the common man in places like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the UAE, etc. as our rhetoric implies. We must demand it and we must make it unavoidable. The money that flows from these places to the hands of Terrorist organizers must be stopped and it can only be stopped by choking the economies of these theocracies.

We must see and publicize Jyhadis the world over for who they really are: They are cowards who use the downtrodden to extort the west. Hammas must be exposed for this. The "Martyrs Brigade" must be exposed for this... If they are to be the heroes of Islam let they who make the bombs also wear them; to strap bombs to women and children while living in relative luxury is cowardly, dishonorable and a crime against anything sacred ever found in the cause of Jyhad.

This rant could go on for DAYS but I'll leave off here to catch my breath and let my keys cool off.... ;)

[wwworry]

I totally agree with thread starter.

[Taft]

The war on terror. ...

Bravo.

That is a very rational and well thought plan that puts to shame the policies of the current administration or any plan I've heard Kerry speak of. Quite frankly, I don't see Kerry as being the silver bullet to fix the current "war on terror." He, or any other president, would act similarly in the face of an event like 9/11, IMO.

The sad fact is that Bush has clearly demonstrated a lack of sophistication in his administration's efforts on the war on terror. Killing terrorists (and drawing fire from the mainland) seem to be the only two matters of importance to his administration. His inability to see what those actions will reap in 20 years time is utterly tragic.

You are right, it is a vicious cycle. Terrorism cannot be stopped by brute force alone. Force is necessary and often justified, but only by understanding and eliminated the conditions which cause terrorism can we ever hope to be free of its grip.

Taft

[diamond geezer]

I agree bttm, great post.

I would however disagree with regards to Iraq being a place to fight the War on terror away from the US mainland. The huge majority of the people that the US is killing are merely iraqis defending their country. You are therefore fighting "terrorists" of your own creation, most of whom had no connection to terror groups before the invasion.

[wwworry]

edit (sorry posted in wrong thread)

[Backtothemac]

I agree bttm, great post.

I would however disagree with regards to Iraq being a place to fight the War on terror away from the US mainland. The huge majority of the people that the US is killing are merely iraqis defending their country. You are therefore fighting "terrorists" of your own creation, most of whom had no connection to terror groups before the invasion.

Actually, the point I was making is that the US decided to use Iraq as a faint. To fight the war there, instead of here. However, from family friends, and co-workers that are there, the majority of the people we are fighting are from Syria, Iran, and other countries, not Iraq.

[IJ Reilly]

Actually, according to recent intelligence estimates, only a small percentage of the insurgents are from outside of Iraq. This news came out fairly recently.

[diamond geezer]

Actually, according to recent intelligence estimates, only a small percentage of the insurgents are from outside of Iraq. This news came out fairly recently.

Perhaps bttm is laying the political groundwork for an invasion of those two countries.

[Xtremehkr]

Just a suggestion or two, from what I have found through looking into what kind of alternatives there were out there. I was very surprised at what I found...

American Bioenergy Association (http://www.biomass.org)
Biomass basics (http://www.nrel.gov/clean_energy/bioenergy.html)
Hemp for Fuel (http://fornits.com/hemp/biomassa.htm)

Hemp as Biomass for Energy (http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRG.htm)
Charging Ahead (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520216148/103-0838317-5908619?v=glance)

Hemp is always a touchy subject to mention when talking about Biomass, even though it is perfect for Biomass due to its composition. Hemp is incredibly versatile, and does not have to contain THC.

"Charging Ahead" is a great book about the Biomass potential, and it does not mention Hemp at all. The author felt that getting knowledge out about Biomass was as important as trying to explain why Hemp is so well suited.

This would remove our need to go to other nations to get our energy resources. It is causing conflict and has been for quite some time. The amount of capital wasted keeping a military force in the Middle East is wasteful when there is a perfect alternative for our energy needs.

If every action causes a reaction, the best way to end this situation is to stop the actions that are causing the reactions. Saving lives on both sides.

Not to mention pollution, air quality, smog, chemical residue and all of the other specific and non specific forms of pollution that are by products of petroleum.

[Xtremehkr]

Well, that would have been a lot easier for everyone to read if it were linked. I guess that comes with time.

[zimv20]

use BBCode, not HTML

[Xtremehkr]

use BBCode, not HTML

Thanks.

[blackfox]

I am not sure this (WOT) is anything new or exceptional...terrorism has been around for as long as mankind has, although the term was not yet coined in some instances. It is a tactical response to a conventionally- superior opposing military force. Along with guerilla tactics, I am sure earlier kings and Empires, as well as the Colonial Powers had to deal with such realities. Here in America, the Native American used some tactics which could be equated with terrorism.

It seems to be a tactic of desperation. Under such circumstances, psychologically it is easier to allow a certain amount of moral ambiguity when the stakes are so high. The demonization of the enemy, a tactic often used helps with the inevitable moral clash faced by those who would use tactics where pragmatism intersects with human decency.

The fact that modern conventional forces use weaponry that distances and detaches the individual from the abhorrent results of that weaponry, including innocent civilian casualties, is but another such conceit. Those we call terrorists, unable to use such fantastical weapons as rationalizations, must use more simplistic ones, but ones that we, ourselves have used in our histories. We are not above reproach here, and we should well understand the mechanisms of such a policy of terror and irrationality. It keeps the enemy guessing and as such is a tactical advantage.

As for the impetus behind the current WOT, it is again a struggle for power and the right to self-determination against a more powerful enemy. As far as we are talking about Arab and/or Islamic terrorism, we are talking about a Culture which was once among the more advance Cultures in the world. Beginning with the Crusades, however, they clashed with the West culminating in their eventual defeat as the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th Century. They were then subjected to the arbitrary whims of the Western victors, who carved up the former Empire into "states" which did not reflect the wishes or the best-interests of the people or of stability. You could make a case that by purposely keeping the ME divided and weak, it would be easier to control and/or dominate them.

Then the West again intervened in the Region, with the creation of Isreal, which was a solution of a Western problem - a homeland for a displaced Jewish race, who had just been victims of a horrible genocide by a Western dictator. The ME had nothing to do with any of this. Nevertheless, a Jewish homeland was created at the expense of the Palestinians and covered land which was sacred to the Muslim and belonged to the Arabs. It should be noted that from a Religious standpoint, there is no enemity between Islam and Judaism. It was a slap in the face, however, to the Arab and Muslim faith to be further humiliated and disrespected by the West, whom they were powerless to challenge. The failure of the coaltion of Arab nations to defeat Isreal, further cemented this reality.

There is also the question of Oil, the ME last bargaining chip. Again, this could hardly be a point of pride for the Muslim/Arab world...With Saudi Arabia seen as being co-opted by Western Interests for the sake of Security, with Iraq falling under a secular neo-socialist Regime, and Iran being run by a corrupt Western-influenced Shah, it would seem that they were once again powerless. A revolution in Iran proved the exception to the rule, but did prove the validity of both the power of Islam as a unifying force and of the power of demographics (numbers).

Lastly, there is also the question of Culture, with the spread of Western consumer culture through the advent of satellite TV and various other media forms. This media onslaught seemed to be attacking the very viability of their sense of selves, which more than anything can evoke a sense of desperation. In a very real sense Arab and Islamic culture was not only fighting for geography or power or money, but for the right to exist.

Again, this has happened to a myriad of subjugated people throughout History, with similar results. Of note, only the Aboriginies of Australia chose a non-violent tactic - they chose just not to breed anymore and peacefully end their Culture. Perhaps Gandi's India would be another example.

Anyway, when you talk about an end to the WOT, in the broadest terms, it is impossible. Still, something close can be acheived. When you talk about any solution, however, you must speak to the underlying problems, not just their symptoms. While much of the current WOT derives from what I have said above (western intervention), it really comes down to the viability of Capitalism.

In a world with finite space and resources, The West has enjoyed pre-eminence for hundreds of years. Capitalism to a certain extent is built on expansion of markets and of wants. For much of recent history the West has consumed a far greater share of the world's resources than they deserve and often on the backs of those countries/cultures less powerful. Some might even suggest that Capitalism needs a segment of less powerful to exploit to make the system work. The work of the IMF and WorldBank can in part be seen as part of this mechanism. In such cases, countries are not given aid to help them acheive the optimal outcome as is relevent to their circumstances, but given aid which makes them optimal in terms of working in the Global Market, which often not in the majority of the country's best interests. Environmental and Worker protection laws, although admirable (and when implemented), further handicap developing countries in suceeding, even though the West had no such handicaps put on them.

Then there is of course, the fact that there is development on a Global scale and there are more people than ever. This puts even more pressure on the already diminishing resources, and creates an even more acute version of the methods that have always been used by the powerful - co-option, subjugation or annihilation of the obstacles (ie people) that stand in the way of what you want.

This is not just about oil, but about every resource, from copper to education to water. As long as there is an inequity in the usage of these resources, there will always be conflict. When talking about self-determination, this is antithetical to the modern Capitalist system, unless you agree to it under the parameters of it's system. We here in the West are as much victims as we are perpetrators.

anyway, that is enough ranting...To be clear, I do not advocate terrorism as a tactic, or pre-emptive War for that matter. I also am not suggesting Capitalism need be thrown in the dustbin. However, when you talk about a problem and are serious about a solution, you must be clear on the causes and the assignation of blame.

In the past, rather than addressing the realities of such, the more powerful have generally pursued a policy of "might-makes-right", which at best delays the inevitable resurgance of the undrlying problem. Currently, however, the level of sophistication and destructive power of modern weaponry make such a policy dangerous to our survival as a species. I would hope that we could all grow up some...

[zimv20]

b'fox -- it's a fascinating idea you mention, that capitalism needs inequality for its own survival. i think you may be on to something.

the US grew its agriculture on the backs of slaves. indentured servitude grew economies in many areas. resource-rich lands were stolen from natives. the industrial revolution can probably contribute much of its success on long hours, low wages and little need to create safe work environments.

will human and workers rights progress actually be the undoing of the US? the export of so many manufacturing jobs over the past couple decades may indicate so.

[zimv20]

the other thing your post got me thinking about was the idea of fighting a war against a technique. terrorism is nothing more than a way to fight a war when you're outmatched.

maybe what we should really be thinking about is a War on Hate. just as the solution to racial hate isn't to kill all non-whites, the solution to western-hate is education and opportunity.

now that i re-read it, a War on Hate sounds somewhat orwellian. might as well call for a War on War and get it over with...

[blackfox]

b'fox -- it's a fascinating idea you mention, that capitalism needs inequality for its own survival. i think you may be on to something.

the US grew its agriculture on the backs of slaves. indentured servitude grew economies in many areas. resource-rich lands were stolen from natives. the industrial revolution can probably contribute much of its success on long hours, low wages and little need to create safe work environments.

will human and workers rights progress actually be the undoing of the US? the export of so many manufacturing jobs over the past couple decades may indicate so.
Insofar as you equate the development of Capitalism with modern corporations, it is easy to identify the problem(s) inherent in such a system: lack of accountability, self-interest, purely financial motivation/standards of judgement and subsquent disregard/suppession of any other considerations even if said considerations were instrumental in development of the corporation itself. Also tendency toward duplicity/propagandazing.

It is interesting to see "Free Trade" being promoted as "fair", as Capitalism thrives on trying to be as unfair as possible, as in exploiting every weakness of your competitors and maximizing every strength you can. Which was realized by some a while back, which is why there was regulation. Now Global Capitalism is so complex and far-reaching, there is no compareable regulatory apparatus, and even if there was, I am not sure they would be able to understand what the hell was going on, with so much to consider. Capitalism, being concerned about only Financial considerations, has no such limitation(s), as they couldn't give a sh** about the consequences of their activities, let alone try to understand them, outside of those which effect a balance sheet.

As for your question Zim, it might...but more likely it will be the US's unwillingness or inability to recognize that fact that it will soon be competing with economic powers such as China and East Asia's "tigers" who will be competing both for resources and in the marketplace. No longer in the position of power in Global markets, we might see what it is like to be in a position of weakness, and we won't like it. Pretty Ironic.

This is what irks me so much about US current policy in the ME (among others)...the fact that we are executing it so poorly/sloppily, while China is playing it's hand much more deftly. Say what you will about China, but at least they avoid the hypocrisy that we engender by dealing strictly with economic/strategic concerns w/o the prostelyzing of Ideology (democracy, Liberty etc) that we pay lip-service to...the unfortunate thing, is that we end up beleiving our own ************, which makes clarity and any subsequent pragmatic action difficult.

This same poor/sloppy execution in the Marketplace can, and has, cause(d) US interests to decline in effacy in comparison with Chinese or Asian business-models/execution.

In any case, as a footnote I would add that when you hear about the WOT and the fight to "maintain our way of life" from terrorist threat, you must ask yourself what actually constitutes that "way of life"...and entertain the the fact that in some respects that is the last thing we should be doing...

[solvs]

It's tough. How do you fight people who hate you because you are fighting them? You can't stand down, because then you are seen as weak and the rest of the world thinks they can walk all over you and your allies. Sometimes you do have to fight against tyranny and for peace. No matter the cost. But if you fight, you are seen as conquerors and warlike. Willing to kill your own people and others (even if they are innocent) to get what you want. No matter the cost. You need to have a leader who can walk that fine line.

And unfortunetly, anyone who would be perfect for the job, wouldn't want to apply.

[mischief]

In any case, as a footnote I would add that when you hear about the WOT and the fight to "maintain our way of life" from terrorist threat, you must ask yourself what actually constitutes that "way of life"...and entertain the the fact that in some respects that is the last thing we should be doing...

That was a hell of an exchange. :eek:

Some really excellent discussion here guys. (applause)

I agree that Capitalism, as any other ideology can prove itself destructive without controls. We're seeing the unfortunate side effects of the widespread adoption of an ideology with no moral core. We saw disasterous results when Rationalism was the Ideology-of-the-day between 1890 and 1945. However, event Rationalism was adopted while the overall cultural norms were less secular and more moralistic. Society was riding the last of the Humanist wave generated in the European Rennaissance.

As with any other period in history the key to ballance lies in synthesis. An integration must be found between the need to keep economic "head pressure" (think plumbing) high enough to keep the system rolling, and the needs of the humans who must do the work.

The more immediate issue though is the nearly incomprehensibly vast differential between the quality of life of the average global citizen and the average quality of life of the average Westerner.

You'll note I refuse to use the term "standard of living". That one's a market metric with no real relevance to satisfaction or peace of mind. I use Quality of Life... The overall comfort level and satisfaction derived from everyday life.

In the past, the improvement of Quality of Life in third world countries came at the expense of Imperial Domination. That is quite obviously not an option. Why was Empire so good for these places in the long-haul? Infrastructure. Europe's recovery from Chaos was speeded by the roads and irrigation systems left from the Roman occupation. India would be far less of a viable country in the world today without the infrastructure left by the British, French and Dutch.

The question becomes: How do we convince some entity or other to improve infrastructure in these places? It takes truely innovative economic slight of hand. I've thought about this at length... Please indulge me a moment:

In these backwaters the lack of infrastructure has an obvious negative impact on the desire of foreign corporations to invest in what is usually a very unstable and inhospitable environment. This has some positive effects however. It allows an open field for self-ownership of small, globally-available companies (LLC's) made up of existing rural communities.

The WTO and World Bank have laid out enough regulation at this point that building "prefab" businesses designed for these places is a distinct possibility. An initiative would be needed to get some running in existing "stable" places like India and spreading the word to other nations.


It would work like this:

I'll use the World Bank as an example. Any large economic group could make it happen but I know that the WB has specific grant programs for this and it makes it easier to explain if it's just 1 hypothetical organization.

A head of state approaches the World Bank for Debt relief. The WB offers a conditional guarantee of new loans contingent on an Economic Viability Program being implemented while the UN provides security. The EVP consists of several teams of specially trained WB employees that go to each village/town/city and establish the short, medium and long term economic strategies for that community. This goes as far as establishing the development and Planning of the community for say... 50 years or so.

The teams then co-ordinate their plans to establish a National plan of the same dimentions. Loans are then extended to each community, which is then Incorporated as an LLC. The communities are then trained, supplied and nurtured for economic success. The Loans would be calculated against the income potential of each community over the fifty year period of the EVP Plan. Dividends would be paid as if the WB was just another venture capitalist.

As National infrastructure improves and the culture adapts to it's new capabilities, UN support and WB management are withdrawn gradually.

[blackfox]

Mischief, it is early and I am only on my second cup of coffee, so if I am incomplete here, chalk it up to sleepiness...

While your idea(s) are good, I think you might suffer from assumption that a large institution is the best or even a viable solution to solving quality-of-life problems in the developing world.

The WB and IMF, are above all, Banking Institutions. I somehow doubt their altruism or their understanding of the problem or of appropriate solutions.

An excellent (and classic) book by EF Schumacher called "Small is Beautiful" is a great outline of an appropriate course to take. The book, if you are not familiar, deals with economys of scale, of those appropriate to the situation.

Here in the West, we are used to capital-intensive solutions often involving a high level of specialized skills. For many in the developing world, this proves counter-productive, as the buying-power of those in need of assistance is too small for the former and their education often insuficient for the latter. The tendency of the IMF and WB to view success through the prism of it's resultant effectiveness in the Global Markets rather than in the local economy, often make it push solutions which further the problem by the accumulation of debt.

I am reminded of a story I heard out of India some time back. There was a province of India, that was very poor. The schools were abyssmal. The environment was in disrepair. The Government was not forthcoming with either money or solutions. The textbooks were dated and in English, covering situations alien to the average poor villager.

So a group of disgruntled teachers got together and built a simple mud-brick, one-room school house. They put all the kids in one classroom regardless of caste. They threw out the old text-books and devised a series of pictograph flash-cards (for the younger students) that dealt with situations the villagers could understand. The older kids took an active role in aiding the younger, and the teachers themselves played only a passive role in the direction of the class. The students succeeded wildly, and took great pride in their learning and often taught basic literacy to their parents. The village poored in meager resources, mostly time and manpower to support to institution and it's creators.

As a second part of the curriculum, all students learned about the local environment and were encouraged to talk to the elders of the village, who spoke about the once-lushness of the land. The students learned simple, demonstratable lessons about the effects of deforestation and resultant soil erosion and fertility degradation. Projects were instituted using simple "mini-dams" and terracing on the hillsides to reverse soil errosion and tree and plant planting was done to further the solution. The whole village participated.

In the course of twenty years, there is now a school such as this in every village, province-wide and the landscape is as lush as it once was, supporting a vibrant local agricultural economy. The literacy-rate is in the 90th-percentile or higher. This was done for peanuts, without government intervention. It addressed the needs of scale, and was resultantly, fabulously successful. QOL was vastly improved...

FWIW

[mischief]

I used the IMF/WB as an example so I could avoid using a more cumbersome label like (Hypothetical International Investment and Third World Development Agency #1).

I think that both techniques are needed. Speed is now of the essence. Cultures need re-integration of their traditional land use but, more importantly they need an international cashflow to pay for infrastructure that will keep an international perspective available. Isolation is as much a problem as despiration.

The topic at hand was "how do you defeat Terrorism?"

I propose a holistic solution.

We need programs like the one you mentioned as a basic foundation but we also need to get these areas talking to the rest of the world on a personal citizen-to-citizen level. The only way to the latter is to really overhaul how those countries (literally) do business. Once there's money moving properly you can look at installing proper infrastructure to support tellecom and data nets. Even if a country "reverts" to it's origins... say Zaire reverts to a tribal system and every Zairi goes back to being a nomadic herdsman it would still be good for Zaire to be selling (say, cattle) on the international market and have at least wireless data/voice service.

Universal data access and worldwide econumic dynamism are the keys to a real global community which in turn is the secret to reducing violent conflict.

[zimv20]

Even if a country "reverts" to it's origins... say Zaire reverts to a tribal system and every Zairi goes back to being a nomadic herdsman it would still be good for Zaire to be selling (say, cattle) on the international market and have at least wireless data/voice service.

your example has me thinking about what the taliban and some (many) imams want -- to shun modernization and live in their own closed society. (though modern technology _is_ used for purposes of their jihad. a rather hilarious contradiction, imo)

and that's something for which the western world will obviously not stand. is it the problem of the western world, not understanding the model and ultimately not approving of the human rights abuses? ("abuse" being a behavior defined in its own terms). or is the western world correct, in that its definitions of freedom and quality of life are correct and universal?

[mischief]

your argument has the odd effect of dovetailing nicely into what the taliban and some (many) imams want -- to shun modernization and live in their own closed society.

and that's something for which the western world will obviously not stand. is it the problem of the western world, not understanding the model and ultimately not approving of the human rights abuses? ("abuse" being a behavior defined in its own terms). or is the western world correct, in that its definitions of freedom and quality of life are correct and universal?

My answer is that both models can be correct. The societies that prefer a simpler existence are by no means all the "savages" that westerners envision.

Take the African Bushman for example. These little guys have no need of outside interference and no effect on the international scene at all... therefore there's no cause to make any attempt to influece them.

The metric has to be based on impact. First off the question has to be asked: Do conditions in the country or society in question adversly effect the surrounding groups?

From there you have to really tailor a solution that both preserves the unique flavour of that culture while providing for integration with the rest of the world. I see Intigration as the really effective solution to isolated and violent societies. You have to get them aware of and doing business with the rest of the world or they'll never really rise above the chaos they're presently in. The example you quoted was intended to illustrate that integration can be achieved with subtlety and grace. You don't need to turn every little hamlet into a British country village or midwestern steel town.

[blackfox]

your example has me thinking about what the taliban and some (many) imams want -- to shun modernization and live in their own closed society. (though modern technology _is_ used for purposes of their jihad. a rather hilarious contradiction, imo)

and that's something for which the western world will obviously not stand. is it the problem of the western world, not understanding the model and ultimately not approving of the human rights abuses? ("abuse" being a behavior defined in its own terms). or is the western world correct, in that its definitions of freedom and quality of life are correct and universal?
First of all, my apologies to BTTM for this tangental discussion.

zim, I believe the taliban is a somewhat the exception to the rule. Before I go further into why, I want to make clear the difference(s) between Westernization and Modernization, which are often incorrectly seen as synonomous. Although the West was perhaps the first Culture to modernize, the character of the West only happened to influence it's particular mode of modernizing.

Back to the Taliban. I say it is an exception, because it is hardly possible in such an interconnected and modern world. Only the most fundamentalist regimes would, purely in ideological fervor, embark on such an impractical program, which severely limits it's appeal. Perhaps more importantly, it is not an avenue which lends itself to a comparative position of power. Which is why even in such instances, the ban on modernization is incomplete, opening up charges of hypocrisy.

The Taliban rejected Westernism more than modernity, although it did seem to equate the two. On some level, however, I believe it was just a convenient cover for their real motive - control.

As for the West (or the US) not standing for such a policy, well they might not enjoy it for reasons as diverse as human-rights issues to the lack of expanded markets. What I think the West really will not stand, however, is other Cultures modernizing on their own terms.

enough for now, too many long posts in one thread...

[pseudobrit]

we can definitely do better. the sad thing is, many of the things mentioned above would brings cries of "appeasement!", and there's something odd about americans and their need to "win" and "kick ass". it's in the national psyche, and unless we can get past that and invest in ideas such as cooperation, humility and compromise, it will be our undoing.

I was speaking about the war with a co-worker today and I said something along these lines, about how the only way out of the mess in Iraq was with international help, and we should be ready to apologise to our allies for pissing on them, show a little humility, and kindly ask for their help.

She just couldn't fathom our nation apologising or showing humility.

I pointed out that the alternative was being stuck in Iraq alone forever. She still couldn't imagine us asking (the French especially) for help.

[Xtremehkr]

If the current system were scrapped and a supply of energy was developed that was able to provide the energy needs of all nations at a fraction of what it currently costs, things would be different.

That was Rudolph Diesels vision. (http://www.ybiofuels.org/bio_fuels/history_diesel.html) His engine ran on peanut oil originally and was meant to provide a cheap means of increasing productivity that would benefit all workers, raising their standard of living.

It's hard to imagine people who are more happy, content or wealthy wanting to become terrorists.

The problem is, his vision was ruined when the engine was refined to run on a resource that is controlled by a minority who have made themselves immensly wealthy.

I don't think it is absurd to consider pollution to be a cost of production, especially when it was a conscious choice to use a fuel that pollutes but is easy to control over one that does not but can be made by virtually anyone.

Change is constant, and empires turn over regularly. Behaviour like that of the energy industry is ultimately self destructive. And not only to themselves.

Here's another biography of Mr. Diesel. (http://members.shaw.ca/diesel-duck/library/articles/rudolph_diesel.htm)It's a shame that someone with such good intentions should have been so tortured.

[davecuse]

I just wanted to say what a great read this thread is.

I've been giving a lot of thought to the end game to the whole terrorist situation which we have gotten ourselves into. It's clear to me that this is a completely self inflicted problem, we got a little over jealous in the past and decided it would be a fantastic idea to arm these people in an unstable region and set them loose on each other. Turns out this was a bad idea, who would have thought?

The only real solution I see is through investing in our future, moving away from interjecting in the middle east and other unstable regions of the world. Science is the answer, we need to become a beacon on the hill, a shining pillar of what a society can be. Heavily investing in nanotech (nano-assemblers in particular), and alternative energy would allow us to become completely self sufficient. The advent of the nano-assembler would be an enormous breakthrough, I believe this would effectively break down the class system that we have become so accustomed to under capitalism, because it would be essentially free to create anything from anything. Alternative fuels, namely solar power, would allow us an infinite source of power. The only cost associated with these technologies is the initial investment, new materials are being worked on at the moment that could allow for this to become a reality.

It all comes down to this, you can't fight an ideology, you can only work to change perceptions. If we begin to invest heavily in technology that will allow everyone to become self sufficient maybe we can get everyone on the same page of advancing our global civilization.

[mischief]

I just wanted to say what a great read this thread is.

I've been giving a lot of thought to the end game to the whole terrorist situation which we have gotten ourselves into. It's clear to me that this is a completely self inflicted problem, we got a little over jealous in the past and decided it would be a fantastic idea to arm these people in an unstable region and set them loose on each other. Turns out this was a bad idea, who would have thought?

The only real solution I see is through investing in our future, moving away from interjecting in the middle east and other unstable regions of the world. Science is the answer, we need to become a beacon on the hill, a shining pillar of what a society can be. (Snip)

It all comes down to this, you can't fight an ideology, you can only work to change perceptions. If we begin to invest heavily in technology that will allow everyone to become self sufficient maybe we can get everyone on the same page of advancing our global civilization.


I applaud your intentions. Though this approach has been tried in the past without success. The greatest impediment to this method is the isolation of the societies in which terrorism and despotism take root. Something must be done to bring the populus of these places into the global forum.

IMO Nanotech will take too much time to fully exploit and will take decades to get to the place that sci-fi writers have envisioned it. However, biotech could become the next big thing very quickly if the fetters were loosed a bit.

What must be kept in mind in terms of "dropping" petroleum is that we're so completely dependant that any transition would take time. The most dammaging polluters and greatest consumers should be converted first. This would be Diesel vehicles and Coal burning electrical plants. Coal note: In order to make steel you need Coal. There's no reasonable alternative.

[davecuse]

You don't think that with all the resources we have at our disposal we could bang out a fully functioning nano-assembler within 10 years? I think it's clearly possible to do almost anything we want, we just have to put our minds (and wallets) into it.

[davecuse]

Also on the note of Diesel... Bio-Diesel is a perfectly viable alternative, awareness, and a pumping station here and there, just needs to be raised.

[mischief]

You don't think that with all the resources we have at our disposal we could bang out a fully functioning nano-assembler within 10 years? I think it's clearly possible to do almost anything we want, we just have to put our minds (and wallets) into it.

Depends on what you mean by fully functional. If you're talking about nano-processors or complex microsurface assemblers that's one thing. Complex objects are something else entirely. Most chemicals are easier to build with bacteria or inside plant or animal cells anyway... Am I missing the point? :confused: