robotech_master (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
robotech_master) wrote2001-10-21 01:09 am
robotech_master) wrote2001-10-21 01:09 am
Politics
Just had an interesting conversation with some online friends about the politics of the whole mess. Started with a mention of an anti-war celebrity at one of the benefit concerts; I made some disparaging remark about such, and a friend of mine, who had previously declared himself a liberal, stated that he disagreed. I asked him what he thought should be done about the situation--and I'm very proud of myself that I managed to refrain from doing so by means of an offensive straw man--and he answered, and we all got to talking about it.
It's interesting...I don't disagree with much of what he (or a couple of the other friends who shared his viewpoint) said. The point of contention was in the attacks--I don't think I'm far misrepresenting them when I say they're concerned that we'll be creating the next generation of anti-American terrorists unless we follow through by rebuilding their country, like we did for Japan and Germany with World War II--but that we can't very well rebuild their country when everyone else in the Middle-East hates our guts. Also, they were concerned about following through with massive aid and food shipments--as the sort we're dropping now are apparently a pittance compared to what's needed.
They also feel we need to address the basic conditions that lead to people like Bin Ladeen being able to recruit volunteers in the first place--the economic situation--by providing aid in such a way that it could not be stolen or co-opted by the governments. Even they would admit, I think, that this is a bit easier said than done.
Perhaps I'm just a starry-eyed optimist, but I'm still hopeful that some good will come out of this whole mess once we have the Taliban gone, Bin Ladeen taken care of, and things straightened out.
Bedtime.
It's interesting...I don't disagree with much of what he (or a couple of the other friends who shared his viewpoint) said. The point of contention was in the attacks--I don't think I'm far misrepresenting them when I say they're concerned that we'll be creating the next generation of anti-American terrorists unless we follow through by rebuilding their country, like we did for Japan and Germany with World War II--but that we can't very well rebuild their country when everyone else in the Middle-East hates our guts. Also, they were concerned about following through with massive aid and food shipments--as the sort we're dropping now are apparently a pittance compared to what's needed.
They also feel we need to address the basic conditions that lead to people like Bin Ladeen being able to recruit volunteers in the first place--the economic situation--by providing aid in such a way that it could not be stolen or co-opted by the governments. Even they would admit, I think, that this is a bit easier said than done.
Perhaps I'm just a starry-eyed optimist, but I'm still hopeful that some good will come out of this whole mess once we have the Taliban gone, Bin Ladeen taken care of, and things straightened out.
Bedtime.
no subject
Not that I'm a cynic, but the thought of airdropping materials to the "opressed people" of a country you're also dropping 500lb and up bombs on is just innately disingenius. The poor schmoes in the wasteland don't know if its a care package or a big ol' explosive, so they just run when anything flies over. The Evil Bastards In Power are in power because they're evil bastards, so have sort of a moral requirement to confiscate our own food and feed the troops fighting back with our own lovingly offer rations. It is, in short, stupid in the maximal degree.
The only way feeding the populace'll work will be after a massive pacifying ground push, where our frontline troops make a concerted effort to move non-combatants behind the lines, handing them food and water on the way with a smile and a wave. Then, of course, we're stuck rebuilding a country while surrounded with people who don't want us to, including our erstaz allies, because stabilizing the region is the last thing they want politically, and building schools/creating more people-oriented governments will be seen as "spreading Western Corruption(tm)" to pretty much everyone.
Want to know the real problem in the region? No one wants to say it, but its Islam. Yeah, not politically correct to say, but its true. Its the religion of the area, and its about as right-wing set of discourses created in the dusty past as you can imagine, and it mandates that religion and government travel in the same cart. That, right there, is the root of the problem, because folks practicing religion are, by definition, following an irrational agenda. Today's mullahs may be wise and holy men. Tomorrow they can want your blood and call for jihad if you cross your bolo tie wrong on Holy Wednesday. That's what's wrong with the Middle East, along with a history of hating and killing each other 10x as long as the US has been around.
My actual solution to the problem involves building a big wall around the whole area and telling them to fight it out until only one group's left, televising the whole thing from satelite feeds, and then nuking the last guy into merciful oblivion for his successes, but that's unlikely to help. Instead, what we can reasonably do is go over, kill everyone who opposes us, and rebuild the place by force, wiping out the opposition as we go. But who has the balls for that anymore?