From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Wed Nov 28 2001 - 09:52:38 MST
>From: "steve" <steve365@btinternet.com>
>Not neccessarily. It's worth thinking about this from the
>viewpoint of realpolitik/raison d'etat. If people attack you you
>need to know what their beef is so you can calculate the relative
>cost of 1. Killing them, 2. giving them what they want 3. giving
>them some of what they want but making it clear that's all they're
>going to get. If giving your enemy what they want is too costly (a
>threat to some vital interest or the existence of the state) then
>you accept the cost of killing them.
Al-Quaeda performed this calculation for us. After refusing their
argument ad baculum, they attacked us, leaving destroying them as
the best option.
The Al-Quaeda/Taliban narrative was that U.S. "interventionism" was
bad for Muslims, completely ignoring U.S. interventionism in both
Kosovo and Kuwait on behalf of Muslims.
The war has already demonstrated the Al-Quaeda/Taliban narrative
wrong, the Afghans are better off now, after U.S. intervention,
then they were under Taliban/Al-Quaeda rule.
Which is why the former demonstrations have disappeared.
>If the cost balance works out the other way you make a deal -
>this is what the British government has done with IRA/Sinn Fein.
The long British occupation of Northern Ireland is another matter,
best left to a seperate thread.
>Why not ? Clearly Israel is not going to make a deal because it
>(realistically) sees that as a threat to its existence (see
>above). However you need to ask - is a threat to Israel a threat
>of equivalent severity to the national interest of the United
>States ? If it is then how is it ? I can see a case for arguing
>that the loss of the oil under Saudi would be a devastating blow
>to U.S. interests but doesn't supporting Israel make that outcome
>more likely ? (My own view is that the House of Saud is past its
>sell-by date and won't survive much longer. Raison d'etat would
>lead the U.S. to support the regime for as long as possible, say
>for 8-10 years, while sorting alternative sources of energy). The
>point is the world is probably safer if people act on the basis of
>The Prince rather than moralistic arguments. Steve Davies
You'll find me in the other camp, doing what I think is right
rather than what is necessarily in my best interest. (Actually I
think what is right IS in my best interest.)
I think Israel and Palestine will eventually come to terms.
I share your appraisal of the House of Saud.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:16 MST