Xah Lee's Unixism

[Chuck Dillon]

Greg Menke wrote:
> Chuck Dillon <spam at nimblegen.com> writes:
> 
>>Greg Menke wrote:
>>
>>>Chuck Dillon <spam at nimblegen.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Antony Sequeira wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>
>>Regardless of how we got where we are there are arguably benefits to
>>the "war on terror".  That doesn't mean you should miopically focus on
>>them as the sole rationale for regime change in Iraq.  See the various
>>U.N Security Counsil resolutions for the primary rationale.  Also, see
>>the reports from Blix et.al. that point out the lack of cooperation on
>>the part of the Iraqi government.
> 
> 
> I still fail to see why invading Iraq has anything to do with "war on
> terror".  If the goal is to fight terror (laudable), then why are we
> not invading the countries that actually sponsor it?  Afganistan was
> the right step- but who the hell cares if Iraq "obeyed" the
> resolutions?  ...

I suggest you look a little deeper into the problem than simply which 
states are undergoing what problematic behaviors now or recently.  What 
is the underlying cause of the terror and how can we address that?

No it's not oil.  It is the pressure of social and political change in 
the Islamic world that has tried for generations to isolate itself 
from, what you and I would call progressive changes, happening 
elsewhere in the world.  The ever shrinking world is breaking down 
their methods of isolation and bringing the fundamental conflicts 
between traditional Islam and the modern world to a head.   The changes 
that occurred over generations in the west and far east are being 
flooded on Islam in a fraction of the time.  It's no surprise, to me at 
least, that there are side effects.  A similar thing would happen if we 
were talking about applying comparable pressure on Catholicism or any 
other religion.  It's not specific to Islam.

The west has for a long time taken a hands off "let nature take its 
course" approach.  Islamic terrorism was an unfortunate side effect 
that could be mostly ignored as long as it remained at an acceptable 
level and mostly contained in the middle east.  Israel has been in a 
very disadvantages position as a result of this approach by the west. 
9/11 blew that norm to hell.

Bin Laden (and others of his ilk) is, IMHO, similar to what Charlie 
Manson was except that where Manson had a relatively small pool of 
young disillusioned people susceptible to his powers of manipulation, 
bin Laden has many millions.  Where Manson had no resources bin Laden 
has wealthy backers who want to hold on to their power.

So now the west must take a more active role in the situation.  We need 
to find a way to contain the problem to the middle east and try to 
achieve the prior norm, with a level of acceptable terrorism.  And we 
need to impress on the Islamic leadership (i.e. clerics) as well as 
governments that they must take responsibility for dealing with the 
side effects of social change.

Going into Iraq was IMHO justified without consideration of 9/11 or the 
war on terror.  Setting up a more democratic and educated Afghanistan 
and Iraq blows a big whole in Islam's isolation efforts and forces them 
to deal with the reality of the 21st century.  The process will be 
bumpy but we can no longer be patient when the mainstream of Islam 
allow violence on the scale of 9/11 or beyond to occur.

As for the go it alone issue.  Given the above "theory" if you prefer 
and what happened on 9/11.  It seems natural that we (the USA) would 
have a more acute interest in replacing the "let nature take its 
course" strategy with a more active one than other western nations that 
were not directly attacked.  Those other nations might call for us to 
be patient and accept the cost.  Basically what we and the rest of the 
western world have asked Israel to do for some 50 years.  It's not 
surprising that the decision to take a more active strategy toward the 
middle east was less than unanimous.  It also would not be surprising 
for only one or two nations to take the lead and therefor the brunt of 
the near term acute risk of reprisals while other nations give passive 
support.

That's how I see it at least.

-- ced

-- 
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.