> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jdiebremse > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 9:57 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: "Someone Must Tell Them" > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So, if I understand you correctly, your favored strategy in dealing > > > with Al Qaeda would be to: > > > > > > -Withdraw immediately from Iraq > > > > I'd give it six months, withdrawing gradually. > > > And would you still blame us for the number of people that would > continue to die?
I do think Powell's statement "you break it, you bought it" is reasonable. I fear that, in choosing the future actions of the United States in Iraq, our choices are actions that will result in very bad outcomes and actions that will result in even worse outcomes. > > > I don't think that we're writing checks to the Saudi government, but I > do believe that we provide military assistance. This assistance > obviously goes back to the first Gulf War, and is related to the fact > that it is Saudi supplies of oil that are keeping the world price at the > 60-or-so dollar level that they are at right now. I understand what we are doing in Saudi Arabia is working with a government that is not a good government, but isn't hostile to the West. It isn't nearly as bad as the next government would be, for the world in general and for the citizens, if those who wish to overthrow the government (AQ and fellow travelers) get control of the government. The real argument for this is that, even for the sole superpower in the world, there are a limited number of options available. > > Sounds like "managed decline" to me.... It sounds a lot more like managed containment to me. There are not many good alternatives. Take N. Korea. Clinton chose to accept the fact that N. Korea had already taken enough plutonium to build 1-2 bombs (probably before he took office), and still pay N. Korea to drastically slow the processing of more plutonium. The alternatives were to pay nothing, and watch the capacity grow. This was Bush's option. Now it's true that if China decided that an imploding N. Korea was the least bad alternative for it...we might get some real pressure on N. Korea. But, until it is in the best interest of the Chinese government to do so, they will not use their leverage to stop N. Korea. So, we can talk another 10 years, but nothing will happen until N. Korea implodes, or something really bad happens. The third alternative has always been military force. The US is the only country that can project significant force globally, and it could have knocked out the N. Korea nuclear program when Clinton had his choice. But, N. Korea would have been able to do a great deal of damage in a second Korean War before losing. How much is a matter of debate and very dependant on the condition of all the artillery aimed as Seoul. But, many estimates are in the multiple hundreds of thousands of deaths. In Iran, we face similar, yet different choices. We will not have effective sanctions because such sanctions are not in the enlightened self interests of Russia or China, both of which have strong economic interests there. We could target just Iran's nuclear facilities, but from what I've read, the military thinks that they are too scattered and hidden to do more than delay the acquisition of a bomb. While delays are worthwhile, I don't think it's worth the increased incentives to get and use such a bomb that would result. A full scale invasion could, after a year of searching, reset the clock on Iran's capacity, but it would take an occupation force to ensure that it wouldn't restart. > > > -Impose a tariff on oil imports such that the price of oil > > > consumption exceeds to price of renewable energies produced in the > > > US > > > > I would raise energy taxes and use the revenue to fund alternatives. > > I don't propose tripling the prices overnight. For one thing, people > > wouldn't stand for it, but we're going to have to find alternatives > > eventually, why not start now? Why continue to fund the fundies and > > the terrorists? > > > Well, the threat of terrorism is present today. Sure, but the present level of threat isn't what's worrisome...its how things may extend into the future. I think we have enough time to take prudent actions instead of high risk/high payoff short term gambles like the Iraq war was. Especially since we lost that gamble, and are worse off than in 2002. >So, either your > proposing tripling the price of oil in this country, or you are > proposing a policy with about as much near-term relevance for energy > independence as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I remember near term energy independence being a policy of Nixon and Ford and Carter. :-) It's not really achievable. So, it seems reasonable to decrease our dependency now, by raising fuel taxes by, say, $0.50 gal per year for the next 10 years, or some similar means. >In > this case, it appears that you are proposing a policy that might bear > fruit in decades, and engging in partisan bashing of the people who have > an electoral responsibility to also look at policy options that are > effective for the present. The problem is that there are not many, and there are now fewer than there were 4 years ago. I'm sure you see it as partisan bashing, but I think it is possible to point out the damage the current administration has done to the safety and well being of the US without it being an inherently right/left issues. For example, Bush Sr. would have done much better, and could very well have managed a successful outcome if he were in charge of Iraq II. I would guess Lugar would have been much more effective, as would have McCain. The only thing left for us to accomplish in Iraq, I think, is to try to minimize the death rate from the inevitable continuation of the ethnic cleansing that we are now seeing in Iraq. I think that the countries around Iraq have enough interest in preventing total chaos so that they would cooperate in such an endeavor. We could then hope that the inherent nationalism in Iraq and the Persian/Arab differences would preclude too strong an alliance between Shiite Iraq and Iran. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
