Xah Lee's Unixism

[Chuck Dillon]

Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <ci4gs0$23p$1 at grandcanyon.binc.net>,
> Chuck Dillon  <spam at nimblegen.com> wrote:
> 
>>Antony Sequeira wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Chuck Dillon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>	3) It demonstrates to other states in the region that they could have 
>>a regime change in about a month's time if they allow themselves to be 
>>in the position of being held accountable for any future attack. 
>>Removing the Taliban was a much more ambiguous demonstration of this 
>>since they had no real military and really weren't an organized state.
> 
> 
> Dont' you think they already knew that? The main problem is rather
> how many iraq's can we handle. 

Apparently not since the Taliban ignored it and it seems the Saudi's 
did as well.

> 
> 
>>	4) Look at a map of the middle east.  It provides us with a base of 
>>operations in the center of the region.  We probably won't have to ask 
>>for access to bases and airspace in future operations, which hopefully 
>>will never have to happen.
>>	5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at 
>>establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.
> 
> 
> Valid arguments, but this "democracy-building" has been utterly
> mishandled. Firstly by an [almost] US-only war, and then by a US
> occupation by PHB's. 

Easy to say and perhaps true.  What benchmark does one use to make the 
judgment?  Can one reasonably expect another administration to do 
better?  It's easy to criticize something this messy (to say the 
least).  But unrealistic to expect that there was a significantly 
easier road that we failed to see.


> 
>>Before you respond saying that it increases the number of potential 
>>terrorists that might carry out an attack, that may or may not be so. 
>>But for such an attack to be carried out requires organization and 
>>resources not just a bunch of pissed off people.  It would require at 
>>least implicit support by a state or very large organization with 
>>resources.  If you are one of those pissed off people how are you going 
>>to sell your plan to say Syria?
>>
>>You are being naive.  Complain as loud as you like but there is no 
>>question that the ability and demonstrated willingness to defend ones 
>>self is the best deterrent to ever having to do so.
> 
>

> 
> Now, can we handle a North Korea that really goes sour; together
> with an al-Quada insurgency in a few african states, plus Sudan, 
> a few tribal genosides, Turkmenistan gone bad (sliding there fast), 
> and islamic revolution in Pakistan; or civil war there; plus another
> backlash in Afghanistan.
> 
> All of these are very real and immediate conserns. I haven't even 
> touched the Burmas and the Indoneias that seem stable at the moment.
> 
> This is why I critisize the go-it-alone policy so harshly. I have 
> a feeling we haven'ẗ seen the worst yet. 

I don't see that we've gone it alone at all.  Again it is easy to 
criticize.  I think politically we are better off having our power 
tempered by strong nations.  It reduces the concerns of all 
non-combatants in the west and in the Islamic states.  Good cop bad cop 
comes to mind.

We may not have seen the worst.  Who knows?  I cannot see the danger 
being significantly reduced until the Islamic mainstream begins to take 
ownership of the problem rather than nurturing with unfortunate 
rhetoric.  And I can't see that happening without a strong incentive. 
And I can't imagine a stronger incentive than understanding that we 
hold them accountable when extremism from their midsts manifests itself 
in the non-Islamic world.

-- ced


-- 
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.