|
Full Disclosure
mailing list archives
Re: Free Iraq
From: "Garrett M. Groff" <groffg () gmgdesign com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:59:42 -0400
A thoughtful reply was posed to my address rather than the list. I'll keep
the sender anonymous & post my reply since others have posed similar
concerns:
Excellent point. Initially, a "puppet regime" would be in place to run the
country on a day to day basis. Actually, I'm more concerned about the
pertinent country's 1) access to the global economy as well as 2) security.
Point 2 is obvious enough, so I'll focus on point 1.
Simply stated, countries that have or are moving in the direction of broad
economic integration with the rest of the world (i.e., that are or are
becoming more "globalized," to use the vogue term) tend to be more moderate
in their ideologies, better (or getting better) in their governance and
governmental transparency, and more economically productive. On that last
point, I'll take keeping people busy with jobs over the prospect of millions
of "idle hands."
Economics binds people together, even if they're of disparate cultures and
beliefs, and gives them a means of constructive, non-violent engagement with
each other. It leads to idea-sharing that would otherwise be difficult and
discouraged. It leads to distribution of power away from the central
government, as people compete constructively in the private sector rather
than just politically in the halls of power. Oh, and it also increases
aggregate prosperity in the region, and by extension, across the globe.
Globalization is the answer to Salafist (Sunni extremist)-borne terrorism in
the long run (or any terrorist ideological movement), as alternate view
points dilute local/regional extremism and, pragmatically, give people other
things to do. The same effect occurs in rogue regimes, assuming we (or
someone) is able to "persuade" the heads of state in those regimes to allow
exterior connectivity.
The strategic vision that I'm suggesting is that we use our global power
projection as the initial phase in taking out stubborn regimes. That's a
small part of the picture, but still a necessary piece.
- G
----- Original Message -----
From: [REMOVED]
To: "Garrett M. Groff" <groffg () gmgdesign com>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Only problem is that the "re-building" usually involves the
installation of a dictator who supports American policies at the
expense of that nation's people's rights.
--
[NAME REMOVED]
On 3/27/08, Garrett M. Groff <groffg () gmgdesign com> wrote:
Excellent points, with exception to the gratuitious name-calling (just
b/c
there are annoying people on this list who throw out invective doesn't
mean
we should submit to our temptation to do the same vile practice back to
them).
I'll add the following (despite the fact that it's grossly off-topic!).
The
Iraq war was more than just a follow-up to a UN resolution or two. It
was a
desire by neo-conservatives to re-make the Middle East. That desire is
partly strategic and partly political. Strategic: eliminate the threat
of
WMD proliferation (including to Salafist groups like Al Qaeda) by
scaring
rogue-ish countries into thinking "they're next" if they don't behave
(think, Libya). The strategic plan was to go beyond Iraq and is often
referred to as a "domino effect" whereby other mid-east nations
liberalize
their political systems and economies. Political: free up huge oil
fields in
Mesopotamia, bringing down global oil prices. Also, empower Republicans,
making them appear more responsive & pro-active in a post-911 world to
threats posed by rogue nations & global terrorist groups.
My focus is strategic, since the political side-effects are less
important
and less justifiable than the strategic argument.
Result...
Unforutnately, the nation-rebuilding effort is not going well (compared
to
the actual "war" which went well by historic standards, lasting only
about 4
weeks; everything since has involved dealing with the war's aftermath).
I
can think of specific things that would have made the nation re-building
campaign much more likely to succeed. Rather than a lengthy explanation
on
that, I'll say this. Think about what would have happened if the Bush
administration weren't so inept and if Iraq had been a successful model
of
nation re-building. That model could be replicated to other
nation-states
that are arguably and egregiously bad, be it countries with a) too much
government (dictatorships) or b) too little government (many African
states,
which are tribal & lack sufficient central governance).
A "nation re-making" process that falls under UN legitimacy would be
powerful, shifting the American focus from maintaining the "superpower
status quo" to "making the world better." Sounds controversial (like
some
imperial colonial fantasy), but try living in the DPRK, Cuba, or Sudan,
and
tell me those nations aren't screwed up and wouldn't go for a "nation
re-making" make-over, provided that it actually worked.
The US (and others) will certainly engage in nation re-building again.
If
you don't believe that, then check out recent US history. It's really
just a
question of when, where, and to what extent. Next time, I hope the war's
aftermath goes substantially better and involves broad international
legitimacy, not to mention significant involvement in the post-war phase
(where the US actually needs allies).
- G
----- Original Message -----
From: <Throwaway1 () columbus rr com>
To: <full-disclosure () lists grok org uk>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
By Date
By Thread
Current thread:
Re: Free Iraq Handrix (Mar 27)
(Thread continues...)
|