[eDebate] ans Newnam

Jason Jarvis debatekorea
Sat Jul 8 08:28:29 CDT 2006


----Original Message Follows----
From: "Michael Korcok" <mmk_savant at hotmail.com>
To: "edebate" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Subject: [eDebate] ans Newnam
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 03:05:59 -0400

2) you might not notice them screwing with you

they were certainly already screwing with the US.  they flew planes into the 
Twin Towers and the Pentagon for example.  this was a move to try to let 
them know that screwing with the US just got a lot riskier and costlier.  
and it seems to me to be designed to avoid exactly your worry:  rather than 
playing the regular game of trying to figure out who is and isn't a huge 
threat, it warns potential enemies that even the appearance of impropriety 
will cost them.and this seems to me a potentially productive response in the 
context of proliferation and terrorism.  hey, if the commies in the USSR are 
the threat, you can play a nuanced game with them.  at least as much as you 
can do anything nuanced with a bunch of drunken commie morons.  but when the 
threats are much more ambiguous, stealthed, proxy, and uncertain...  perhaps 
"don't even think about looking at the US funny" is what is needed to make 
them begin to behave.


>Mike, I am curious what your response to Klemz is....he points out that 
>this argument is empirically denied by what the other actors are doing 
>after our aggressive (and hopelessly misguided) adventure in Iraq:

1) Terrorism did not stop, nor has it decreased.  Bali has been bombed 
twice, Madrid, London, and Delhi were all hit AFTER our invasion.  By what 
standard can you suggest that terrorism has decreased due to our response?  
At best, you can argue that they havent attacked inside the US.  Congrats! 
but MANY of our allies have been bombed, in particular ones who supported 
making Iraq the 51st state.

2) Iran: more radical, a faster and more open development of nuclear 
weapons.  How have they been deterred?

3) North Korea: (particularly pertinent to me) More open development...hell 
they might not even have nukes, but they learned by watching Saddam that 
ambiguity is a death sentence, so they announced that they are nuclear and 
seem to have made a sport recently of taunting Japan with rocket launches.

4) The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: now not only a coalition of 
Russia, China, and Central Asian states, but including potential new members 
such as Iran and even India.  Looks to me like a group of folks that are 
nervous about the US and its big stick are quickly forming a counterbalance 
to US pre-emption.

The Bush Doctrine is causing the very problems it was supposed to prevent.  
I cant really see how its helping anyone.  The view from abroad is clear: 
the faster he leaves the better off we will all be.  Shirking the value of 
soft power in every way in order to avoid a 1% risk CREATES lots of problems 
that didnt exist and sacrifices subtle forms of power that are often more 
effective than threatening people.

.02,

Jason






More information about the Mailman mailing list