Sander said:
Sander, what makes you think bringing down/halting the wall will stop the terrorists?
I said it would help, I never said it would all-out stop them. Thigns like that HELP to stop terrorists, with less hostile actions like that, less attacks will come.
My fear is that it's too late for that. The extremists on both sides have polarized the issue to the extent that peace is unlikely. While I agree that a better relationship between the Israelis and the Palestinians could reduce tensions, I think the grievances are already very great, the financial support exists such that any unscrupulous leader could easily mobilize both the Jews and the Palestinians to renewed conflict.
On the other side there is a saying that strong fences makes for good neighbors. If they can't get along, better to keep them apart.
Like what we did to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis. I still hate to appease any terrorists, if we can get them later, safer, then go ahead and temporarily give them a false sense of security.
The main problem with the missile crisis was not that of a nuclear attack, both countries knew that they wouldn't attack eachother, that would have been stupid(Local soldiers might've done that, though, but that isn't part of global policy), but more the infringement of sovereignity on own soil. While it was troubling, the threat was at least semi-false. Only a Strangelove-like scenario could really have detonated nuclear bombs.
If you look at the records of the crisis, was was very narrowly missed. On the table was a threat to invade or strike Cuba. In such a case the Russian troops on the ground had tactical nuclear weapons. Furthermore, had such a strike occurred, the Russian response was to hit Turkey, that would have triggered Article 5 of NATO (as Turkey was a member) and the bombs would have started flying.
Don't forget, the Cuban Missile Crisis came before MAD and at a time when both sides thought they could escalate war into nuclear exchange without complete self-destruction. It is the Cuban Missile Crisis that really gets the arms race cooking because the Soviets feel teh need not to be embarrassed in the future.
The only way to appease Al Qiada however is to get the U.S. presence out of the Middle East. Which is something that is not acceptable. It leaves an entire region vulneralbe to chaos, and makes us look very weak to give in to a ragtag group of terrorists
Well, Al Qaida is one of those groups that can probably not be appeased, but why do you think the influence of the Americans in the middle-east is actually beneficial? From what I have seen, their influence is hardly beneficial, and leads to severe cultural clashes.
I agree that Al Qaida can't be appeased. If anything a reduced US role in the region might reduce Al Qaida's interest, but as long as the Middle East pumps oil, US interests will be there.
It's simple. The US is a commercial power, commerical power runs on oil. If something threatens that oil, there goes your commercial power.
But the last great commercial power was England, and if you look at their 'empire doctrine' it was mostly a practice of indirect imperialism- especially in South America. By lending capital they influence changes.
We can think of the power structure of countries in two ways, and this from Tilly's Coercion, Capital book. One extreme is capital powerful- think of the Dutch or Venice in their time of greatness- yes they had military power, but it was primiarly driven by capital intensive economic. The other side is coercion- (think of Russia) the ability to apply military power. Between the mix- capital or coercion is the hybrid. England was a mix, as was France, so is the US.
It is possible to exert power through the use of capital. The problem with the middle east is that the capital rests in two places- Israel- perhaps the most developed state in the region, and the petrol states. THe petrol states got their power by nationalizing the foreign owned oil companies, and then going into partnership with those same companies to market.
What is vulnerable to those companies make vulnerable the globalized economy (primarily the intense transnational trade between the US, Europe and Pac-Rim- mainly Japan and China).
US cannot afford not to be involved in the region. Like Europe during the Cold War, the US is merely protecting it's national security interest.
I also seriously doubt Iraq will turn into another Vietnam. One major reason I will give you now, there is no draft. Another, public relations are quite good.
The main reason is casualties, the casualties are not as high, and the problems aren't as great either. Vietnam was a much greater issue because of the nature of the military conflict, but Iraq is nonetheless bad.
I kind of disagree. Vietnam was sold as stopping the dominos from falling, but as Kissinger points out, the mistake was fighting in Vietnam when it might have been better to fight elsewhere. At stake was the spread of Communism into a former French colony, but that colony was a fairly marginal player in the global stage. Although Southeast Asia did have a number of communist movements, most had not been very successful, one had been beaten in Malaya. It is doubtful that the communists would have made much progress and even if they did it, in hindsight, the economies would have ground to a halt like they did in most other communist dictatorships.
In the middle east you have something else at stake. You have a group of petro states run by powerful dictatorships that had a brief moment of oppulence in the 70s and have not been doing so well since. Except for the micro states of the Persian Gulf, none seem to be viable for the long-term. Because democratic movements during the Cold War might have carried "socialist programs" to nationalize the oil, they got cut.
In lieu of them you have religious movements (because it's easy to mobilize in a mosque- the Black did it in the churchs in the south during the civil rights movement in the US). Thus where you don't have oil- you have strong Islamist movements that are anti-west. In the oil states you also have movements. Think about the stability or role of these countries Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia in the global economy and it looks like the oil pump is at risk.
The Bush play, to create democracy in the middle east, is to create a viable alternative form of political economy, under US tutaledge. But this is a region with long grievances against colonial authorities and foreign involvement. It won't be easy.
