From: steve (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Wed Nov 28 2001 - 09:06:12 MST
"Brian D Williams" said:
>
> >From: "Pat Fallon" >
> >Some thoughts on the subject of terrorism, for what it's worth.
>
> >I think it is very important to understand why we were attacked.
> >Understanding why someone attacked you may help you avoid a
> >similar situation in the future, for one thing.
>
> <the rest of a long post distilled down to one sentence>
>
> "Give the terrorists what they want and they won't be terrorists
> anymore."
>
> Not going to happen.
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. 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.
>
> We know what the terrorists want, and they are not going to get it.
>
> The first thing they want is for us/U.S to stop supporting Israel,
> so they can try/fail again to destroy it, and that is not going to
> happen.
>
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:15 MST