This "Lie" is far bigger than the one regarding WMD in Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CWOT
I don't think the fear of being hunted will keep AQ attacks from occurring. They are seeking death as a way of fulfilling their ideology.
Persistent pursuit does alter AQ's operations and their security. Continued attacking of AQ's leadership shapes their ability to conduct further operations.
OK, quotes on "Lie" because I don't think either was a conscious lie to defraud the American people; but rather that the idea that AQ is about ideology is even more flawed than the idea that going into Iraq was about WMD. Or more analogous, that Soviet efforts to expand their influence during the Cold War were about Communism; or that U.S. efforts to expand its influence are about Democracy. We need to learn to be better at separating Causation from Motivation; and Material Facts from Relevant Facts.
AQ and Bin Laden are an organization and man for their times; much as the Nazi party and Hitler were for theirs. Different times in a different place, they don't occur. Given the time and place, if they did not exist some similar organization and leadership would have eventually emerged in response.
The seeds for WWII were planted at Versailles; or at least were not eradicated and were well fertilized there by the victors of WWI. Similarly the seeds for GWOT have been planted and nurtured over hundreds of years of Western Colonial and Post-Colonial manipulation of the politics and populaces of the Middle East. With the end of the Cold War rationale for such manipulations and the advent of the tools of globalization AQ and Bin Laden were inevitable.
The question is not what happens if we kill Bin Laden. Answer that and get a C+. The real question is what happens if we do not address Western foreign policies toward the Middle East? What happens if the West continues to enable some of the most despotic regimes on the planet to both remain in power and treat their own populaces with impunity? Kill bin Laden, but that is just step 1 in a 100-step process. Personal opinion? We've been way too focused on step 1, and it is distracting us from the hard policy work that is yet to be done on the other 99.
1 Attachment(s)
Replacing "Containment" with "Empowerment"
A paper I have coming out soon will explore this in greater detail, but here is a snapshot side-by-side comparison of what we've been doing for 60+ years in "Containment" with what I propose is more appropriate for the emerging world with "Empowerment."
Empowerment is a word the President uses a great deal. It's in his intro to the National Security Strategy. But that is all it is, a word. A bold, encouraging word, with little to flesh out what he really means, what is his specific guidance to the government in this regard, how do we operationalize it, etc.
I don't know if this is the answer, but it is something I've been playing with at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. This is just a snapshot, so may well spark more questions than answers, but any comments, pro or con are always welcome from my august peers here at the SWJ.
I think you have the idealist and the realist confused. Seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
A paper I have coming out soon will explore this in greater detail, but here is a snapshot side-by-side comparison of what we've been doing for 60+ years in "Containment" with what I propose is more appropriate for the emerging world with "Empowerment."
However, letting that alone for now, I have some questions on your "empowerment" column:
- Who or what establishes -- and enforces (as 'limits' implies constraint of some sort) -- those "clear limits" for 'empowerment?'
- Avoiding excessive partiality and excessive dislike are noble ideals. My suspicion is that US Policy makers may not themselves be idealist enough to adhere to the mantra but of more concern to me are those nations that will not reciprocate that ideal attitude and will endeavor to manipulate it. How do you propose to avoid the first cited possibility and obviate the second?
- Who or what establishes the "clear" limits on freedom and competition? Do we have a 'right' to establish such "limits" while still following our "core principles? If we do, who or what will insure they are followed?
- How do we promote self determination and principles, deny (or did you mean to not deny them...) unalienable rights while at the same time allowing freedom and competition?
- Will the encouragement of "positive behavior" entail bribes as to Egypt, Israel and many other nations over the last half century?
- Who determines what are in fact, not in hopes or personal opinions, "core U.S. principles?" How will we embed the accepted and agreed principles to the extent that political ideologies involved in changes of Administrations will not entail a major policy shift?
I'll also note in passing that yet again you evade a direct response. You wrote:
Quote:
What happens if the West continues to enable some of the most despotic regimes on the planet to both remain in power and treat their own populaces with impunity?
I then asked:
"Define 'enable.' Please provide examples, I'm old and slow..."
"Also, what is your suggestion to remediate that shortfall you perceive?"
If you meant your Chart as partial answer to my requests, I can accept that as your ideas on remediation (subject to my specific queries herein on that Chart ;) ). However, I really would like to know who in the West is enabling and how they are doing that.
As Dayuhan noted, those little details have to be considered... :wry:
Return of the Great White...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Just providing food for thought, and it is good to see that the sharks are feeding.
Nibbles, no feeding frenzy...
Re: your cited States:
Quote:
In all we look the other way when they suppress the dissent of their own internal populaces...
How do you propose we correct their tendency to do things of which you and some others disapprove? (emphasis purposefully added...)
Does not such corrective action interfere with your stated intent:
Quote:
We need to hold true to our own stated values, but we need to not demand them of others.
Dichotomy there, you seem to want to have it both ways. You've never really addressed that issue even though many surface it occasionally. Some of us seem to think it important to your hypothesis...
As several of us -- not just ol' moi -- have mentioned, you cannot correct their attitudes and 'not interfere' at the same time. You occasionally suggest that if we just talk to them, they'll fix it. Lot of skepticism about that...
I'm pretty well aware of what our core principles are supposed to be and from whence they spring. Tthat's not an issue, this is:
Quote:
...Many of these core principles are assessed differently over time, and those assessments are "values," a principle with judgment applied to it.
Exactly. The issue is how you persuade the American public, the Administration and Congress of the day to hew to those values. To say we should do so is easy. It is likely also futile UNLESS you can show a benefit to us for doing so and, thus far, you have failed to do that IMO.
Quote:
As to the common argument for never doing something new, even though most can agree that the current course is in need of change is "that would be hard, how would you do that."
I'm all for doing something new and have long had gripes with what we are doing -- but the issue isn't avoiding change, it is how to bring that change about. I agree with where you want to go and have long -- along with several others -- suggested that your goal is good -- what's your strategery to get there? :wry:
Quote:
But this is just a summary slide from a deck of slides that summarize a paper, that in turn summarizes a concept.
And my questions above were just a summary of the many more questions that slide raises.
Recall the old staffers dictum -- answer the question, answer the question that should have been asked and answer the questions your answer will generate...:cool:
Quote:
Anything worth doing is likely to be difficult. Anything new is likely to be incomplete. For most of us, it is the challenges of new and difficult things that get us out of bed in the morning.
Yeah. Howsomeever, it's been my observation that it is far less difficult if one provides consensually viable steps instead of just telling the boss he's stupid...;)