Why Giuliani is Unqualified to be Prez

[DinoDoc]

Why should foreign policy be held hostage by terrorism?

[Arrian]

The crazies will always have something to rant and rave about. The massacres in Burma (wtf?) our support for the Eevil Hindu civlization. The Joos. Lebanon.

Certainly. Crazies always find something. The question is will others listen to them? Right now they are listening.

I think the example of 1990-1991 would be a powerful statement to allies in the region that, should they face the threat of conquest, we can and will show up and stomp the invader.

The thing is, of course, that conventional invasion/conquest probably isn't going to be something they face (in part because of how badly we stomped the last guy to try it). So that circles back to the issue of training security forces for counterinsurgency. On that issue, I rather think we need to train our OWN army for that first, before we train others.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why should foreign policy be held hostage by terrorism?

It shouldn't.

The impact of FP on public opinion in the ME is not something to ignore, however.

-Arrian

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian
The madrassas are obviously worrisome, PLATO, but as Imran points out they have been around a long time. The more recent (and unfortunate) development is the radicalization of those schools. As I understand it, that's something that has taken place over the last couple of decades.

-Arrian

Hopefully you can see that you are as wrong on this as Imran is. The growth of madras has been incredible in the past 30 years and the number of radicalized youth they are producing is fueling the overall increase in radicalism far more than US troops are.

Look at the expansion of radicalism in Pakistan (which even Imran cites) and there are no US troops there. What about Egypt?

Oh..you say that is in response to US involvement in Iraq (which of couyrse it isn't)? Well what about Sudan, Somalia...the list goes on.

Please undertand that the US is fighting this problem...NOT creating it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian

That's the basic calculus I'm arguing for: make damned sure that we NEED troops/ships/etc in a place if we know that having that presence is going to piss off the natives.

-Arrian

1. I dont think we agree on the usefulness of the strategic purpose, from the ease of reentry to KSA, to Algeria.

2. I really dont think we know the effect of basing on radicalization. How many muslims around the world were protesting the US presence in KSA in 1998? How many would protest a residual US presence in Kuwait? The debate has gotten all tied up with the very emotional debate about Iraq, where both sides make assertions on limited evidence in frustration with the blinders of the other. Whatever the real answer to that question is, it would be a mistake to generalize from that to other forms of presence.

[Arrian]

Alternatvely, there are elements in KSA society, even in the royal family, that would like to switch sides.

No kidding. I'd go further and guess they're already playing both sides. Frankly, sometimes I wonder whether it's really useful for us to treat the Saudis as allies at all.

As for Egypt, IIUC we're kinda stuck with them as long as we want to resolve Israel/Palestine. Sigh.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Certainly. Crazies always find something. The question is will others listen to them? Right now they are listening.

I think the example of 1990-1991 would be a powerful statement to allies in the region that, should they face the threat of conquest, we can and will show up and stomp the invader.

The thing is, of course, that conventional invasion/conquest probably isn't going to be something they face (in part because of how badly we stomped the last guy to try it). So that circles back to the issue of training security forces for counterinsurgency. On that issue, I rather think we need to train our OWN army for that first, before we train others.

-Arrian

1.those who listen to crazies will also find reasons to listen. often extraordinarly local reasons (like Pashtun resentment at non-Pashtuns in Afghanistan, or the situation in Pakistan, or whatever) Again, I see no evidence that the US presence in KSA was especially powerful as a recruiting tool, above and beyond resentment at the nature of the KSAs alliance with the US itself.

2. Stomping on the last guy. The next guy may well have nukes.

3. training - I dont think we can wait to train anyone. Esp not if we dont our troops over there.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


No kidding. I'd go further and guess they're already playing both sides. Frankly, sometimes I wonder whether it's really useful for us to treat the Saudis as allies at all.

As for Egypt, IIUC we're kinda stuck with them as long as we want to resolve Israel/Palestine. Sigh.

-Arrian

The new king seems to be more firmly against AQ. Im not saying the whole regime is pro-AQ it, isnt. Im saying that leaving them exposed (IF pulling our forces out would do that) would strengthen the elements that are pro-AQ.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


No kidding. I'd go further and guess they're already playing both sides. Frankly, sometimes I wonder whether it's really useful for us to treat the Saudis as allies at all.

As for Egypt, IIUC we're kinda stuck with them as long as we want to resolve Israel/Palestine. Sigh.

-Arrian

The new king seems to be more firmly against AQ. Im not saying the whole regime is pro-AQ it, isnt. Im saying that leaving them exposed (IF pulling our forces out would do that) would strengthen the elements that are pro-AQ.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian

As for Egypt, IIUC we're kinda stuck with them as long as we want to resolve Israel/Palestine. Sigh.

-Arrian

We take that attitude, we hardly incent them to help.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by PLATO
My point is that unless you try to interdict these zealots on their turf then you will be forced to do it on your turf.

Is invading the ME interdicting them on their turf? I don't think that that really prevents attacks in the US, although that is what one would think at first glance. Maybe they don't choose to attack the US on it's soil at this time. Maybe they like to fight the US in the ME. That seems logical doesn't it? The US looks like the bad guy and it helps their recruitment.

That said, I suppose they may choose to attack on US soil again if we pull out to try to get us to do something stupid (IMO) again. But we can't really fight them over there forever. We just can't keep it up. We can discuss it until we are blue in the face, but the fact is that the will to keep it up is just not going to be there, not to mention the finances.

I think the solution is to try to minimize the damage that they can do to us and the amount of recruiting and financing that they can do.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian


No kidding. I'd go further and guess they're already playing both sides. Frankly, sometimes I wonder whether it's really useful for us to treat the Saudis as allies at all.

As for Egypt, IIUC we're kinda stuck with them as long as we want to resolve Israel/Palestine. Sigh.

-Arrian

Well, when the royal family of Saudi Arabia owns things like 27% of Citigroup (world's largest financial institution) then it is hard to do anything but kiss their feet. The Saudis are behind much of the radicalism and also control a good measure of both the US economy and the world economy.

There is no easy answer with the Saudis, but they are definately a big part of the problem

[Arrian]

Originally posted by PLATO


Hopefully you can see that you are as wrong on this as Imran is. The growth of madras has been incredible in the past 30 years and the number of radicalized youth they are producing is fueling the overall increase in radicalism far more than US troops are.

Look at the expansion of radicalism in Pakistan (which even Imran cites) and there are no US troops there. What about Egypt?

Oh..you say that is in response to US involvement in Iraq (which of couyrse it isn't)? Well what about Sudan, Somalia...the list goes on.

Please undertand that the US is fighting this problem...NOT creating it.

Those numbers do indeed show the proliferation of madrassas going back beyond the last 20 yrs. I was thinking since roughly 1970 (collapse of pan-Arab nationalism, roughly), but said "a couple of decades" which only gets me back to 1987. I've gotten old enough now that I think of 20 yrs as getting back into the 70s... time flies.

We're in a propoganda war, and we're not doing very well. What I'm arguing is that we need to do a better job of reducing the appeal of this ideology. There is no one magic policy for that.

Let me ask you this: what purpose has Iraq served, from the perspective of the WoT? My answer: it's been counterproductive for the WoT, at least so far (there is still some dim hope that Iraq will come out of this as an example of a peace-loving democratic Arab state). There were other reasons for the invasion, obviously, and I really don't want to get back into that old debate. I bring it up, however, because we're talking about future policy. I have argued that future policy should aim to reduce our footprint in the ME. I say this because I think moving our troops won't do undo harm to our ability to apply force if the situation absolutely calls for it, and offers the benifit of reducing resentment amongst the locals. It's possible I'm wrong, not being a military man.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by PLATO


Hopefully you can see that you are as wrong on this as Imran is. The growth of madras has been incredible in the past 30 years and the number of radicalized youth they are producing is fueling the overall increase in radicalism far more than US troops are.

Look at the expansion of radicalism in Pakistan (which even Imran cites) and there are no US troops there. What about Egypt?

Oh..you say that is in response to US involvement in Iraq (which of couyrse it isn't)? Well what about Sudan, Somalia...the list goes on.

Please undertand that the US is fighting this problem...NOT creating it.

I think you might be assuming that these people are united by nationalism more than religion. I don't think that's the case.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Is invading the ME interdicting them on their turf? I don't think that that really prevents attacks in the US, although that is what one would think at first glance. Maybe they don't choose to attack the US on it's soil at this time. Maybe they like to fight the US in the ME. That seems logical doesn't it? The US looks like the bad guy and it helps their recruitment.

That said, I suppose they may choose to attack on US soil again if we pull out to try to get us to do something stupid (IMO) again. But we can't really fight them over there forever. We just can't keep it up. We can discuss it until we are blue in the face, but the fact is that the will to keep it up is just not going to be there, not to mention the finances.

I think the solution is to try to minimize the damage that they can do to us and the amount of recruiting and financing that they can do.

I agree that the mere presence of fighting over there does not prevent attacks on US soil. I would contend that it does degrade their ability to launch them. The targeting of leadership also helps degrade their ability to obtain financing and recruitment as well.

I further agree that we cannot fight this fight forever eithier. This is why it is critical to try and set up as secular as possible friendly democratic governments that can not only combat terror themselves, but can begin to change the radical teachings of the regions youth.