Brilliant. Couldn't have said it better. arthur
-----Original Message----- From: Gurstein, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:57 AM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pete; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Talking Peace with OBL I think one of the problems here is that it isn't exactly clear who the enemy is... OBL is a shadowy figure who may or may not still be alive and whose direct control over his "troops" seems rather more of the order of trying to "command" a network (hmmm futurework) than anything resembling an army. By some measures (and analyses, including presumably OBL's fondest dream if he is still), the enemy could be interpreted as the entire Muslim masses...a truly doomsday scenario it seems to me. So rather than, dare I say (Arthur?) really dubious historical analogies, "the West" would be better advised to treat the whole thing as a globally distributed and particularly vicious and destructive riot, subject to putting the stong arm on the ringleaders, containing the damage and waiting for cooler heads to prevail. MG -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cordell, Arthur: ECOM Sent: February 1, 2006 4:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pete; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Talking Peace with OBL So its 1942 or 1943. Japan makes overtures to the US to sit down and talk about a truce. Pearl Harbor is a few years old. What is the downside of sitting down and talking? Read Paris 1919. That book seemed to indicate that one ( of the many problems ) flowing from World War One was that there was surrender but of an ambiguous nature. I am sure no proponent of war but am equally against giving the enemy false hopes which can later be seen as a victory. arthur -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:11 PM To: 'pete'; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Talking Peace with OBL Hi Pate, Well of course talking with enemies is not appeasement -- nobody would be so foolish as to confuse substance (appeasement), with modality (talking). Otherwise we might as well shut down all Foreign Offices and Embassies! You will be glad to know that in the last months, the notion of talking with those we've declared to be our 'enemies' is being seriously looked at, along the lines that Arquilla publicly discussed. Of course, there are those in this country who have staked their careers on the idea of a global war, but that model is fading as even its advocates realize that it is fraught with logical confusions and inconsistencies. I listened to the President's speech this evening; it was a strange mix of rehashed and now discredited arguments, and read-between-the-lines concessions that things are going so badly in Iraq that a basic rethinking has to be undertaken. But it shows still zero understanding of the differences and relations between, for example, Zarqawi and Thawahiri (Zawahiri). Yet without understanding these kinds of nitty-gritty realities, US policy cannot but be simplistic and dysfunctional. I was at a briefing today on Iraq and Iran, and it is clear that senior US military and DoD analysts realize that the US is in deep trouble, not just in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East and Asia. Even the neocons, as I've suggested before here, are recognizing that some of their key assumptions about the world and US leadership are not being born out. The more thoughtful among them have become strangely quiet, and even some of the more vocal, such as John McLaughlin, have turned into acerbic critics of Bush and his team. So though the surface appearances here in Washington continue to be of concern, there is behind the scenes and as yet out of public sight real reason for hope. Cheers, Lawry -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pete Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Talking Peace with OBL On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, "Cordell, Arthur: ECOM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Definitions of appeasement on the Web: >* Giving in to the demands of aggressive powers to avoid war, etc.. If dialogue is appeasement, we're all doomed. Talk is always good. If you're talking, you're not shooting. Well, talk is always good, unless you're the US ingenuously saying "Gee, let's just go back to square one and start negotiations with a clean slate" right after their last appeal against the rulings rejecting their softwood lumber tariff has been rejected, and they're faced with actually paying up.... -Pete V Re: >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Watters >Cole > >Comments? > >Why we should take Osama's olive branch >It's the first step in winning the peace >by John Arquilla, San Fransisco Chronicle, Sunday, January 29, 2006 _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
