"And then there are those, who like Richard Gere and sv81, use mindless mantras whi ch do little but expose the fraud of "United We Stand" for what it is: "Divided We Fall". "Increase the Peace", or to quote Gere, "we need compassion and understanding", not military action. I don't understand what that means."

Well, I don't know what Richard Gere meant, I didn't hear what he said. But to take a shot at it, understanding the last 50 years of American policy in the Islamic world would be a start. For some reason people out there seem to think that if we even suggested that cause and effect is operating on any level here, then we are saying, oh, let's lie down and let them kill us. Which is not what I'm saying. I'll guess that it wasn't what Gere was saying. But again I don't know. (Boomers do say some silly stuff)

So let's put this out there ... what if there *was* a non-military solution to this problem out there? Chances are we wouldn't even know what it was because most Americans don't even know the bare outline of events in that region. If you don't want to go for "compassion", let's at least start with bare comprehension.

On 2001-10-26 08:40, oddlystrange wrote:

Amen. That's why I don't vote.

Do you not vote in order to skirt the issue of being responsible for your choices? I'm just curious.

I always vote, I tend to vote for the losers, but I do try very hard to vote. While I admit I have serious issues with many of the election processes in this country, I cannot sit by idly and say that I didn't at least try to get "my way" when it comes to our government.

I am, however, an NPA when it comes to political parties. I want to adhere to what I beleive is best for *me*, not what I beleive is best for a party's well-being.

Jen

I vote even when I do not like the candidates. Even if it's more a vote AGAINST rather than a vote FOR. Why do I vote? Because it gives me the right to complain. If I don't vote, then I have no right to complain.

On 2001-10-26 15:33, angeli wrote:
"And then there are those, who like Richard Gere and sv81, use mindless mantras whi ch do little but expose the fraud of "United We Stand" for what it is: "Divided We Fall". "Increase the Peace", or to quote Gere, "we need compassion and understanding", not military action. I don't understand what that means."

Well, I don't know what Richard Gere meant, I didn't hear what he said. But to take a shot at it, understanding the last 50 years of American policy in the Islamic world would be a start. For some reason people out there seem to think that if we even suggested that cause and effect is operating on any level here, then we are saying, oh, let's lie down and let them kill us.

Hi Angeli,
that was me you were quoting. I like your posts and think you have a good head on your shoulders. Here's my problem with the "compassion and understanding" approach (and with the "peace rallies"): they are admonishing the use of force after the worst attack ever on American soil, and twisting things around to make the U.S. seem the aggressor. I hate reading about how we should "stop our war on the Afghan people" -- this is either incendiary or plain stupid talk. Obviously our war is against the terrorists, and those that support and shield them. Because they are now in Afghanistan, we have to go there to eradicate them. How does this mean that we are declaring war on Afghanistan? Yet that's apparently the unquestioned perspective of those I see chanting.

Cause and effect can probably be traced back to Shem and Ham, or whomever the original tribal patriarchs were. It's not too difficult, in that region, to light a fire of hatred amongst the people, and to set that fire upon whomever the demagogues please.

And in effect, Gere IS saying "let's lie down and let them kill us", and then show compassion for the poor victims, and honor the rescue workers again. He's not explicitly SAYING "let's all lie down", but that is the net result of his words. Words come out, but there is nothing in those words to indicate what we DO. So, we do NOTHING. And then the terrorists strike again, because we did nothing to prevent it.

I'm also sure he was not talking to terrorists when he urged "compassion and understanding", just as sv81 was not suggesting that THEY consider that "there's room enough for all of us in this big ol' world", or something to that effect.

So all the advice is one-sided. We, the attacked, now must be the understanding ones; if not, we are viciously decried as murderers, as the instigators of violence; Sept. 11 is shoved aside, it is not the main event. I guess it will soon be forgotten, except as a cautionary reminder of how bad America is.

The only way for me to understand this is to recognize it as part of the ongoing Culture Wars. All the ulterior motives are bundled into one. It's a "cause", an opportunity to unite the Left. I see through the so-called "compassion" pleas to get the real message: "Fuck the Establishment". Not that the "Establishment" is defined, so "America" (or better, "White Man's America") will do nicely as a substitute.

So let's put this out there ... what if there *was* a non-military solution to this problem out there?

Then let's please have it! First, define the problem. In the meantime, how do you solve this one?: there are terrorists in our midst, whose existence is dedicated to plan and carry out murders of American civilians, the more the better? Would part of the solution consist of trying to eradicate their leaders and their bases?

And this one: someone killed close to 6,000 American civilians in an unprovoked attack. (Or do you call it provoked?) Do we have an obligation to identify and capture the responsible parties, even if they are not physically in the U.S.? If not, would you arrest me if I blew up another city building, if I blame the U.S. in some way for my action? Or if I blew up a building in another country?

I don't see why the concept that we have a right to punish the perpetrators, and a duty to at least try to prevent further attacks, is so ambiguous, such that we have to focus primarily on topics such as Islam vs. "The West", and who is right and who is wrong, culturally speaking. Murder is murder is murder, and if the Taliban had handed over the terrorists, we wouldn't be bombing Red Cross clinics by accident today. Should we have said, "at least we asked, but now that they seem so firm in their beliefs, we should let bygones be bygones, and pay lip service to how wrong they were"?

Chances are we wouldn't even know what it was because most Americans don't even know the bare outline of events in that region. If you don't want to go for "compassion", let's at least start with bare comprehension.

First of all, I very often mistrust those who claim to "comprehend". I see that a lot about Germany, for example, where I spent over 10 years of my adult life. People who were there for a year try to "explain" things, and get it all wrong. Same with lots of so-called Middle East "experts", I bet. But more importantly, I don't C-A-R-E, as I tried to explain in a prior post. I don't need to comprehend beyond the fact that we need to extinguish the terrorists. We're either the strongest nation in the world, as we've been telling ourselves, coasting through the 90's, or we are essentially impotent, as the Taliban claims. I get the picture, I don't need to "understand": it's a simple case of "haves" vs. "have-nots". And I don't think the West is obligated to simply hand over everything that was essentially obtained originally through science, intellect, enterprise, organization, and other Western traits, simply because along the way colonization happened. I do NOT think America is "bad", or that it "exploits" the Third World. Take away the infrastructure, the capital, the university learning, etc., and the Third World would not suddenly turn into paradise. The West should help, but it is not obligated to help, and when I see protestors in the U.S., I notice just that, that they are in the U.S., and thus have not volunteered to live in the Third World to help however they can. Since colonial times, the West has helped more than harmed the Third World, and I will gladly defend that statement against knee-jerk reactions made by citizens of Western countries.

Anyway, that's all beginning to run rather far afield.

I feel like I'm in the minority on this site, saying such things, but in the vast majority of non-4T-posting Americans. Why is it such a struggle to agree on what seems so simple? (This thought must have been "thunk" millions of times by both sides of the Culture Wars over the past few decades!, as well as throughout history...)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: richt on 2001-10-26 19:56 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: richt on 2001-10-26 19:59 ]</font>

On 2001-10-26 19:52, richt wrote:


First of all, I very often mistrust those who claim to "comprehend". I see that a lot about Germany, for example, where I spent over 10 years of my adult life. People who were there for a year try to "explain" things, and get it all wrong. Same with lots of so-called Middle East "experts", I bet. But more importantly, I don't C-A-R-E, as I tried to explain in a prior post. I don't need to comprehend beyond the fact that we need to extinguish the terrorists. We're either the strongest nation in the world, as we've been telling ourselves, coasting through the 90's, or we are essentially impotent, as the Taliban claims. I get the picture, I don't need to "understand": it's a simple case of "haves" vs. "have-nots".

It's quite possible that we are neither impotent nor the most powerful force on Earth. There is a broad range of positions a nation or individual can be found in between king and slave.

Furthermore, it does matter what the Taliban and other opposition groups are thinking and saying and doing, because the better you understand your opponent, the better a chance you have of defeating him, either by predicting his next move ahead of time or by perceiving a weakness he/she doesn't realize exists and exploiting it.

Ignorance is a deadly state, especially in wartime.

On 2001-10-26 07:53, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
[HopefulCynic] And no, I don't think any of the current major players really knows where this thing is going, or how to get there. Nobody knows, not Bush, not bin Laden, nobody.

[Mike A] What Bush faces is a nontrivial war, plain and simple. He desperately wishes to avoid a real war and instead wants to wage "war lite". The link you suggested was the military asking for ideas on how to wage war lite.

There is very little plain or simple about this war, right down to the list of people we would classify as enemies and/or allies.

What Bush would like is for Bin Laden to be killed by one of our bombs or raids. Or maybe if we bomb Afghanistan enough the Taliban will "cough him up". Of course Bush realizes that neither of these things is likely, but they *could* happen. Bombing worked in Bosnia and it took much longer than we've been at it so far in Afghanistan, so bombing is going to continue. Not only that but the Pentagon is advertising for clever ideas on other things we can do short of waging war.

The reality of the situation is that US corporate elites will no longer be able to "do business" with the elites of poor countries and expect the US government to be able take care of any "side effects" without serious political consequences.

The core of the problem stems from the two basic mechanisms of economic growth. Think of the economy as a tree. To make the tree bigger one can either add more leaves to the branches or more branches (to which leaves can be added later). New branches are formed by "basic" innovations that lead to entirely new industries (ex radio, pre-war autos). The development of a branch requires the development of markets for the "new thing". It is hard to do and very risky. It is something best left to entrepreneurs who have little to lose and everything to gain. The growth of "leaves" refers to refining the basic innovation, reducing its cost through returns to scale and incremental improvements (e.g. automatic transmission for cars, TV as "radio with pictures") and extending it the entire population. This mode is easier to do for established businesses since the results are more predictable and one does not have to take as much risk.

Original growth of leaves on a fresh branch is very profitable and has low risk, for there is still vast untapped market for the rapidly-improving basic innovation. Growth is rapid and smooth while the demand is gradually met and the product refined to a "mature" product (this happy situation was the norm in the late 1940's into the early 1970's as leaves were grown on the branches laid in the 1880's-1920's entrepreneurial period). Later as the markets become saturated real growth increasingly required incremental improvements to the cost of production and growth slowed. The Japanese are particularly good at incremental production improvements and so the 1970's and 1980's saw one "old economy" industry after another being "taken over" by the Japanese.

The "solution" to declining returns from "leaf-type" growth is to move into "branch type" growth. Predictably, at the *same* time that the Japanese were starting to do "leaves" better than American companies, Bill Gates and others like him were busily doing "branches". The 1990's boom (like the 1920's) was driven by the "branch-making" activities of entrepreneurs, and not on "leaf-making", which the post-war boom was based on.

Not a bad analysis of the economic trends of the last several decades.

After the end of the cold war, US "old economy" executives found a way to make leaf-making more profitable and so maintain their relevance and power. By shipping high paid US manufacturing jobs overseas (globalization) US companies could obtain lower costs. Essentially what corporate management was doing was transfer wealth from US workers to their companies (and themselves). Japanese businessmen have a cultural inhibition against globalization and so cannot compete as well with Americans in this regard. The 1990's saw a renewal of American business vitality in the "old economy" arena as well as the "new economy".

In fact, Japan has begun shipping jobs oversees in seach of cheap labor, albeit slowly and in the face of public controversy.

In the old-economy oil business, access to a reliable, inexpensive, supply is all-important. American businesses, through their influence on the US government, can use the military power of the US (which is largely paid for by others) to ensure a more reliable flow of oil than would otherwise exist and so have an operational advantage over what they would have in an unfettered marketplace. Old economy businesses also rely on the post-war "pax Americana" to create the political stability that makes globalization work. (In the past developed-world businessmen preferred to invest at home or in their own nation?s colonies, where their investments would be safe from confiscation). New economy businesses benefit from globalization too, but it is even more critical for their old economy brethren.

Government-conferred stability in foreign oil-producing operations allows US energy corporations to continue doing "leaves" (continuation of the "oil paradigm") instead of "branches" (alternative energy). Leaders of US energy conglomerates fear that once "branches" start in the energy businesses, they will be taken to the cleaners by entrepreneurs just as were the "old economy" technology giants.

But this pax-Americana has now brought upon us the consequence of large-scale terrorist attacks on continental US targets. It cannot be ignored by any administration, and requires some sort of response. Thus, Bush launched the ill-defined War on Terrorism rather than declare "old-fashioned" war on the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Bin Laden bet that the Americans would not wage war, and so far he seems to be right. In contrast the Japanese, making the same bet in 1941, were wrong.

The fact that *both* the president and vice president are old-economy oil men and the Republican party is filled with executives of old-economy firms that need globalization to maintain their positions as important people, there is enormous pressure to "keep doing things the old way". And THAT means "war lite" is all the administration can tolerate in their War on Terrorism.

This last is not clearly established. At this point, we don't have a clear enough set of national goals or a solid enough target list to go to a total war mentality anyway.

A real declared war will almost certainly disrupt the economic landscape and increase the risk that the future "big players" in the energy business (and in the larger business and government world) won't be the current ones.

Hence President Bush would sooner cut off his own hand than wage war. The Gray Champion will *have* to do things that attack the old paradigm. That is, he will have to become an enemy of the old ruling class (the "old-economy" mass-market business elite) just as Lincoln did with the "old-economy" plantation elite and FDR did with the "old-economy" industrial business elite. Washington can be thought of as attacking the "old-polity" British imperialist elite.

That may well be true, but we don't know yet what the replacement paradigm will be, how different it will be from the current one, or what common elements it will retain (and it will retain some, the idea that every last detail of life changes in a 4T is demonstrably false), or what specific actions will be necessary to bring about the new situation, assuming the ideas work out.

In spite of the horror of 911, it was not the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, in spite of much rhetoric to the contrary. American national survival was in fairly clear danger in 1941 from Germany and Japan. While this may yet reach that point, we aren't there yet, and our enemy list is not nearly so clear.

It's not yet absolutely certain that we are even in a 4T. If we are, then 911 was the beginning, not the culmination phase.

Even if you had a GC of the calibre of Lincoln or Roosevelt, at this point we could not yet really expect to go to total war.

Which government do we fear the most, our own, or the Taliban?

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/2001...r_laws_29.html

http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclu.../warmedia.html

On 2001-10-26 09:30, JustinLong wrote:



[*]
A distinct shift, in public life, away from individualism (civil liberties) and toward community purpose (survival).
<ul>[*]No[/list]

Maybe. The Federal Government is striving for more powers, especially of surveillance, and the FBI is leading the charge. On the other hand, a surprising amount of resistance remains.

[*]
The end of the petty arguments of the Third Turning-the blue-zone / red-zone "culture wars," rooted in old Second Turning debates--that may begin to feel ridiculous, even dangerous.
<ul>[*]Yes[/list]

Currently: Maybe, trending No. The Red/Blue arguments have merely been slightly muted, and are showing signs of coming back at this point.

[*]
The increasing irrelevance of the celebrity culture. Will anyone care about Michael Jackson, or Michael Jordan, in the familiar Third Turning way? Recall how, once the last Fourth Turning started, the flagpole sitters came down, less because they themselves felt any great new purpose than because the public just stopped paying attention.
<ul>[*]Yes[/list]

Currently: Maybe, no clear trend. There news is currently absorbed with the all-anthrax montage, but hints of celebrity culture are starting to peek through. I recently heard a news feature about Condit and Chandra, though it was brief.

[*]
A sharp negative turn in America's perception of immigration (and, in time, of potential immigrants' perceptions of America)--and of "globalism" more generally. Recall the old Wired magazine forecast that "open:good; closed:bad" was a permanent attitude. Will our society now move toward "closed:good; open:bad"? Will we see a move toward nativism in our culture and treatment of foreign-born Americans, and toward a sort of do-it-elsewhere-but-not-here isolationism in foreign policy? What will "Globalism"mean now? Will people begin fearing it, not merely as a possible threat to jobs, but for how it might make fanatics out of people halfway around the world? The nativist right could easily join the anachist (anti-IMF) left on this one.
<ul>[*]No[/list]

Currently: Maybe, no clear trend. Public attitudes toward immigration are unsettled. The media prefer open immigration, even now, and so keep assuring us that immigration is either not a threat or actually beneficial.

The public attitude post-911 has yet to jell.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-10-26 20:53 ]</font>

On 2001-10-26 20:20, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2001-10-26 19:52, richt wrote:


First of all, I very often mistrust those who claim to "comprehend". I see that a lot about Germany, for example, where I spent over 10 years of my adult life. People who were there for a year try to "explain" things, and get it all wrong. Same with lots of so-called Middle East "experts", I bet. But more importantly, I don't C-A-R-E, as I tried to explain in a prior post. I don't need to comprehend beyond the fact that we need to extinguish the terrorists. We're either the strongest nation in the world, as we've been telling ourselves, coasting through the 90's, or we are essentially impotent, as the Taliban claims. I get the picture, I don't need to "understand": it's a simple case of "haves" vs. "have-nots".

It's quite possible that we are neither impotent nor the most powerful force on Earth. There is a broad range of positions a nation or individual can be found in between king and slave.

Furthermore, it does matter what the Taliban and other opposition groups are thinking and saying and doing, because the better you understand your opponent, the better a chance you have of defeating him, either by predicting his next move ahead of time or by perceiving a weakness he/she doesn't realize exists and exploiting it.

Ignorance is a deadly state, especially in wartime.

I'm not suggesting that our government be ignorant about anything. I'm suggesting that I don't need to see CNN giving air time to the Taliban's point of view, as if it were "up to the individual" to decide which side is good and which is evil, or that in fact, "hey, there's good and bad in both sides, so let's just live and let live (if we didn't die)".

On 2001-10-26 20:51, richt wrote:

On 2001-10-26 20:20, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2001-10-26 19:52, richt wrote:


First of all, I very often mistrust those who claim to "comprehend". I see that a lot about Germany, for example, where I spent over 10 years of my adult life. People who were there for a year try to "explain" things, and get it all wrong. Same with lots of so-called Middle East "experts", I bet. But more importantly, I don't C-A-R-E, as I tried to explain in a prior post. I don't need to comprehend beyond the fact that we need to extinguish the terrorists. We're either the strongest nation in the world, as we've been telling ourselves, coasting through the 90's, or we are essentially impotent, as the Taliban claims. I get the picture, I don't need to "understand": it's a simple case of "haves" vs. "have-nots".

It's quite possible that we are neither impotent nor the most powerful force on Earth. There is a broad range of positions a nation or individual can be found in between king and slave.

Furthermore, it does matter what the Taliban and other opposition groups are thinking and saying and doing, because the better you understand your opponent, the better a chance you have of defeating him, either by predicting his next move ahead of time or by perceiving a weakness he/she doesn't realize exists and exploiting it.

Ignorance is a deadly state, especially in wartime.

I'm not suggesting that our government be ignorant about anything. I'm suggesting that I don't need to see CNN giving air time to the Taliban's point of view, as if it were "up to the individual" to decide which side is good and which is evil, or that in fact, "hey, there's good and bad in both sides, so let's just live and let live (if we didn't die)".

It's not the ignorance of the government that is the fundamental problem. If the public is fundamentally clueless about the opposition, it will end up steering the government over a cliff (yes, that's what I meant to say).

In America, no matter what phase the Cycle occupies, the public tends to get what it wants over time. It's not enough for the government to be informed, the public has an obligation to avoid what ignorance it can, as well, or we're reduced to having faith in the government to handle things unsupervised. We've seen how well that works.

On 2001-10-26 20:57, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2001-10-26 20:51, richt wrote:

On 2001-10-26 20:20, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2001-10-26 19:52, richt wrote:


First of all, I very often mistrust those who claim to "comprehend". I see that a lot about Germany, for example, where I spent over 10 years of my adult life. People who were there for a year try to "explain" things, and get it all wrong. Same with lots of so-called Middle East "experts", I bet. But more importantly, I don't C-A-R-E, as I tried to explain in a prior post. I don't need to comprehend beyond the fact that we need to extinguish the terrorists. We're either the strongest nation in the world, as we've been telling ourselves, coasting through the 90's, or we are essentially impotent, as the Taliban claims. I get the picture, I don't need to "understand": it's a simple case of "haves" vs. "have-nots".

It's quite possible that we are neither impotent nor the most powerful force on Earth. There is a broad range of positions a nation or individual can be found in between king and slave.

Furthermore, it does matter what the Taliban and other opposition groups are thinking and saying and doing, because the better you understand your opponent, the better a chance you have of defeating him, either by predicting his next move ahead of time or by perceiving a weakness he/she doesn't realize exists and exploiting it.

Ignorance is a deadly state, especially in wartime.

I'm not suggesting that our government be ignorant about anything. I'm suggesting that I don't need to see CNN giving air time to the Taliban's point of view, as if it were "up to the individual" to decide which side is good and which is evil, or that in fact, "hey, there's good and bad in both sides, so let's just live and let live (if we didn't die)".

It's not the ignorance of the government that is the fundamental problem. If the public is fundamentally clueless about the opposition, it will end up steering the government over a cliff (yes, that's what I meant to say).

In America, no matter what phase the Cycle occupies, the public tends to get what it wants over time. It's not enough for the government to be informed, the public has an obligation to avoid what ignorance it can, as well, or we're reduced to having faith in the government to handle things unsupervised. We've seen how well that works.

I'm tired, and going to bed now. One question: what complete set of concrete actions do you suggest be taken, specifically regarding the Sept. 11 attacks?

I'm up again, and no one's posted in the meantime -- unusual.

I was just lying in bed thinking, it's beginning to look like America resembles a James Bond martini: shaken, not stirred.

[HopefulCynic] There is very little plain or simple about this war, right down to the list of people we would classify as enemies and/or allies.

[Mike] What is so unclear about a war against the Taliban government and their al-Qaeda allies in Afghanistan? The objective would be to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda (just as we did the Nazi party in Germany). This seems like as clear-cut an objective as the one in WW II and a heck of lot clearer than the objective in Bosnia or Vietnam. Remember the Nazis *did* nothing against us (in fact they were widely admired in this country in the 1930's). It was their Japanese *allies* that attacked us. And because of that alliance the full power of the strongest nation in the world was turned against them. Al Qaeda issued a declaration of war against the U.S. and attacked us in a more severe way than did the Japanese in 1941. The Taliban government was given the chance to break their alliance with al Qaeda, but chose to stick by it like Germany did with Japan in 1941. Thus we should have already declared war on al Qaeda and the Taliban government of Afghanistan. This seems quite plain. There is a *consequence* when you form an alliance, you get dragged into your ally's wars.

We need to teach that these consequences are still real in today's and will be paid by strongmen who make these alliances. Our current leadership doesn't seem to be willing to make this demonstration, meaning that large scale terrorist attacks are now "thinkable" and may even become the weapon of choice for world leaders who lack substantial conventional military power. Right now the men in Riyadh, Baghdad, Teheran, Islamabad, and Damascus are watching to see how the U.S. responds to this attack by their counterparts in Kabul.

My point is *not* that the Taliban authorized this attack. I *am* saying is the U.S. can *choose* to hold the Taliban responsible for the doings of their ally, and we can fight a war with them. Nobody in the world is going to seriously doubt that Americans have a pretext to go to war right now. Whether or not we employ the pretext says much about American ability to actually use the power that it *appears* that we have. But what if the U.S. is revealed as a paper tiger?

[HopefulCynic] In fact, Japan has begun shipping jobs oversees in search of cheap labor, albeit slowly and in the face of public controversy.

[Mike] Of course, but nowhere to the extent the U.S. has. The US is simply *better* at globalization than the Japanese.

[Hopeful] At this point, we don't have a clear enough set of national goals or a solid enough target list to go to a total war mentality anyway.

[Mike] Of course we have a clear set of national goals. Our leaders simply don't want to go to war, there is little benefit they can hope to gain and much risk. If they did, crispy formulated war aims would be provided.

Already, their current policy has gotten tax decreases proposed that would be extremely difficult to accomplish in the absence of 911. With luck, if another major terrorist attack doesn't happen, they may be able to further gut social programs in favor of more military spending and accuse anyone opposing their proposals as "soft on terrorism". There will be fat governmental contracts to award to combat terrorism, which will likely produce a stock price spikes followed by waves of insider selling. Lincoln and Washington railed against war profiteering in vain. Steps were taken in WW I (and especially WW II) to minimize profiteering and to spread the burdens more equitably among the population. In the absence of such steps (which I see no signs of emerging) war profiteering is inevitable, its human nature.

[Hopeful] That may well be true, but we don't know yet what the replacement paradigm will be

[Mike] It is not necessary to know what the new paradigm will be to fear it (nobody ever knows what will happen). When your current position is quite satisfactory, *any* change is threatening because it might (and might not) disrupt it. A real war means the end of pax Americana (the whole *idea* of pax is no wars). Those who have been doing well from globalization under pax Americana will understandably oppose its end.

[Hopeful] American national survival was in fairly clear danger in 1941 from Germany and Japan.

[Mike] Oh please, American national survival was never in any danger from Germany and Japan.

[HopefulCynic] There is very little plain or simple about this war, right down to the list of people we would classify as enemies and/or allies.[/quote]

[Stonewall] Well, it seems pretty straightforward to me. We were viciously attacked by terrorists whose network is systemic through a number of Middle Eastern nations. Either we bury our heads in the sand and allow them to continue to prod us with small but deadly attacks of various kinds or we take out the governments which house and support them, i.e. put the fear of "Allah" in those governments. This administration is doing neither. It is merely carrying out pre-existing (pre-911) plans to remove the Taliban (plans revealed but buried in the press as early as March 2001) pertinent in some way to the administration's oil and poppy interests in the region. This war is extremely plain and simple. And if the Bush people were not so typically scheming with their own concealed subplots, we might actually be waging this war so as to win it.

[Mike] Remember the Nazis *did* nothing against us (in fact they were widely admired in this country in the 1930's). It was their Japanese *allies* that attacked us. And because of that alliance the full power of the strongest nation in the world was turned against them.

[Stonewall] More importantly, Hitler was bold (and stupid?) enough to declare war on us as soon as the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He chose to open that can of whup-ass all by his lonesome.

[Mike] Al Qaeda issued a declaration of war against the U.S. and attacked us in a more severe way than did the Japanese in 1941. The Taliban government was given the chance to break their alliance with al Qaeda, but chose to stick by it like Germany did with Japan in 1941. Thus we should have already declared war on al Qaeda and the Taliban government of Afghanistan. This seems quite plain. There is a *consequence* when you form an alliance, you get dragged into your ally's wars.

[Stonewall] HC has a point that it is a little murkier in that we were attacked by an organization (or organizations) as opposed to a nation-state. But all that means is that we must take down the governments which house them. Since the terrorists themselves are like ants in a network of hidden anthills, our only recourse is to put the fear of "Allah" in all Middle Eastern governments such that they might remove the pests from their nations. Of course the administration has been all talk and no show (for example, as Saddam continues to smoke fat cigars in Baghdad).

I believe your point about any Taliban-al Qaeda alliance is immaterial. That goes along with the administration making demands upon the Taliban which they knew the Taliban could not keep (rounding up and turning over this laundry list of individuals and organizations). This is fundamentally a religious conflict and therefore we need to seize the moral high ground. Accordingly, let's not play cheap con games such as making demands on people which everyone knows they cannot meet in order to provide us with pretexts. Let's just say, "Look, you housed and supported this vermin which is committed to crimes against God and humanity. Therefore, no ifs, ands, or buts, you are going down." We need to be completely open and transparent and morally sound in this conflict because ultimately we need to convince a whole lot of Muslims that many of their beliefs have been immoral and downright evil. Unfortunately, the types in the Bush network have historically been even less moral than al-Qaeda.

[Mike] My point is *not* that the Taliban authorized this attack. I *am* saying is the U.S. can *choose* to hold the Taliban responsible for the doings of their ally, and we can fight a war with them. Nobody in the world is going to seriously doubt that Americans have a pretext to go to war right now. Whether or not we employ the pretext says much about American ability to actually use the power that it *appears* that we have. But what if the U.S. is revealed as a paper tiger?

[Stonewall] Right on. But I am sure we are still going to have to take out other governments. Saddam is the fulcrum of Middle Eastern terrorism and he certainly will not be deterred when and if the Taliban is ever taken out. We are going to have to take out Saddam and once he is gone, then we need to sit back and see if we have yet put the fear of "Allah" in all these other nations. If not, then we must keep going taking other governments down and not stop until all remaining Arab nations demonstrate that necessary fear of "Allah."

[Hopeful] At this point, we don't have a clear enough set of national goals or a solid enough target list to go to a total war mentality anyway.

[Stonewall] I think it is very clear. The only problem is that the administration has concealed subplots involving oil and poppies. You get this with any Bush administration and anybody in any way associated with them. These years until the next election will be perilous.

[Mike] Already, their current policy has gotten tax decreases proposed that would be extremely difficult to accomplish in the absence of 911.

[Stonewall] More importantly, they have gotten their Homeland Gestapo. Consider the ramifications. How do you effectively mount a political opposition when the people in power can now listen in on all communications of all Americans at will? If they wish to eavesdrop on any political movement, there is now nothing stopping them. How do you communicate strategy and run any sort of opposing political campaign when the people in power can monitor your private communications and thus always remain one step ahead of you? And the Bush people are about the last ones to be trusted not to abuse this sort of power. We have an extremely serious problem here and no one is addressing it. Either we must all strip naked and live in glass houses such that there are no longer any secrets in the world or this Homeland Waffen SS must go.

With so many Silents still young enough to participate in running the war, I think what we are seeing (or not seeing, militarily) is preditable.

I do not think Bush is the GC, because he is very much part of the "old" establishment. I agree with Mike that the real GC will be willing to scrap the old and get on with the new.

We are still many years away from the climax of the crisis. In the mean time we are looking on some dark days. In my own thinking, of the possible futures we face, none of them is very pretty.

Mike, what's "up" with the Stock Market? Why is it ignoring all bad news, and what can it possibly be hoping for that warrants this upward trend?

Part of my view is informed by what the stock market is doing. IF the late September low holds (and that's a BIG if) then that will be the recession bottom (assuming a mild 1990-like recession). In 1990 the market bottomed in October, at the beginning of the war. Unemployment peaked more than a year later. The stock market always looks ahead.

The war is a big unknown. I did not consider a war in my book Stock Cycles--how could I, it was 18 months ago and my crystal ball is broke :sad:

We have an overvalued stock market, excessive debt, and now a war. And to top it all, a Republican adminstration. Not a happy combination :smile: After all, its what investors THINK that counts.

On 2001-10-27 07:17, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
[HopefulCynic] There is very little plain or simple about this war, right down to the list of people we would classify as enemies and/or allies.

[Mike] What is so unclear about a war against the Taliban government and their al-Qaeda allies in Afghanistan? The objective would be to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda (just as we did the Nazi party in Germany). This seems like as clear-cut an objective as the one in WW II and a heck of lot clearer than the objective in Bosnia or Vietnam. Remember the Nazis *did* nothing against us (in fact they were widely admired in this country in the 1930's). It was their Japanese *allies* that attacked us. And because of that alliance the full power of the strongest nation in the world was turned against them. Al Qaeda issued a declaration of war against the U.S. and attacked us in a more severe way than did the Japanese in 1941. The Taliban government was given the chance to break their alliance with al Qaeda, but chose to stick by it like Germany did with Japan in 1941. Thus we should have already declared war on al Qaeda and the Taliban government of Afghanistan. This seems quite plain. There is a *consequence* when you form an alliance, you get dragged into your ally's wars.

We need to teach that these consequences are still real in today's and will be paid by strongmen who make these alliances. Our current leadership doesn't seem to be willing to make this demonstration, meaning that large scale terrorist attacks are now "thinkable" and may even become the weapon of choice for world leaders who lack substantial conventional military power. Right now the men in Riyadh, Baghdad, Teheran, Islamabad, and Damascus are watching to see how the U.S. responds to this attack by their counterparts in Kabul.

My point is *not* that the Taliban authorized this attack. I *am* saying is the U.S. can *choose* to hold the Taliban responsible for the doings of their ally, and we can fight a war with them. Nobody in the world is going to seriously doubt that Americans have a pretext to go to war right now. Whether or not we employ the pretext says much about American ability to actually use the power that it *appears* that we have. But what if the U.S. is revealed as a paper tiger?

I do not dispute the attacks on the Taliban, and I will shed no tears over their fall. But the Taliban are only the first step.

When you call for total war, do you mean a war of conquest? That means ground troops, which requires bases in the area, which means we have the choice of striking alliances with Afghanistans's neighbors, or else conquering them, too.

Are you calling for a war of extermination? (I don't think you are, but even if you were, it would politically unworkable in America. We may be in 4T, but the public is not ready for that yet even so.)

When I say the situation in unclear, I am referring as much to tactics as strategy. Pakistan, for example, only reluctantly agreed to the overthrow of the Taliban. This is because the fear some of the elements of the Northern Alliance that looks likely to succeed the Taliban.

Russia hates the Taliban, because they suspect that they are funneling money and materiel to the Chechen rebels. Now, up until 911, American sympathy was more with the Chechens than the Russians. I have a sneaking suspicion that part of the price for Russian cooperation is a freer hand in Chechnya (sp?).

Now, Pakistan and India don't like each other. They have a lot of issues, but the province of Kashmir is a particular sore spot. From our point of view, we need both Pakistan and India on board, or at least neutral, because of their geographical location.

Swinging around the curve a bit, we find India and China, who don't like each other. They have already fought some wars in living memory, wars that surprisingly few Americans have even heard about. Because of their location, we need China to be at least neutral and preferably on board. Now, China doesn't like the Taliban, because China controls some Islamic lands on the western side of the country, and they fear that that Taliban could be a destablizing influence.

So, we need China at least marginally cooperative, and they have reason not to like the Taliban. However, it's also going to be tempting for the Chinese to try and extort concessions over Taiwan during this business.

To the north, China and Russia are not happy neighbors. Russia fears invasion from China, and China has mixed feelings about Russia. In this mess, they might be able to work together, but neither trusts the other.

Now, to the west of Afghanistan is Iran. Good ol' Iran, itself a terrorist sponsor by all accounts. However, Iran doesn't like the Taliban, because they follow two divergent strands of Islam. So, in the event of total war, do we declare war on Iran too, as a terrorist sponsor, or do we cut a deal to get a clear shot at the Taliban?

Back to Pakistan for a moment. The general who heads the Pakistani government is marginally pro-American. So are some of the elites. But on the street level, there is a lot of sympathy for the Taliban. The head of Pakistan is caught between his own local Moslem fundamentalists, his hotheaded youngsters who just want to fight someone, Pakistan's old sparring partners in India, and the United States.

We need access to Pakistan, to really do this job right. We could theoretically do it from aircraft carriers, up to a point, but it would soon become a logistical nightmare. Further, that would give the terrorists that much more reason to regard each carrier as a nice, tempting target.

It's in the interests of the leaders of Pakistan to help us, up to a point. On the other hand, if they are peceived as too buddy-buddy with the West, they risk being overthrown by their own people. If this looks likely to occur, should we be prepared to go in with force to shore up Musharef?

Suppose we get involved in a major land war in Asia, and China decides to announce a major drive to 'normalize' Taiwan? Do we go to war with China, or dare we take the risk of letting China be tempted?

I've barely scratched the surface of some of the questions Bush is facing. You bet this is a complicated situation.

[Hopeful] American national survival was in fairly clear danger in 1941 from Germany and Japan.

[Mike] Oh please, American national survival was never in any danger from Germany and Japan.

No offense, but that statement is simply wrong. Had the United States lost World War II, it would have ceased to exist as an independent nation in actual practice (though it might have survived in name).

Now, if you mean that a rallied and active U.S. was more than a match for Germany and Japan, you're right. But make no mistake about the intentions of Japan and even more so Germany. We had to rally and fight back immediately, or face disaster.

The situation with the Taliban and al Quaida, while deadly serious, it not yet as intense a threat as we faced in 1941.

In order for the Nazi German 'vision' of the post-war world to exist, the U.S. had to, at the very least, be rendered impotent. Further, had Germany retained the upper hand, sooner or later it would have developed fission bombs. I suspect Hitler would have found it irresistable to use them, given his Ragnarok-oriented fixations.

I'm tired, and going to bed now. One question: what complete set of concrete actions do you suggest be taken, specifically regarding the Sept. 11 attacks?

That's the point, I don't have very many. Mostly, the same things Bush is doing so far. Bush is making this up as he goes along, and any other leader in his position have to do that this point.

I might try to tie a few carrots to the sticks, for example, by lifting the sanctions on India and Pakistan (nuke related) in exchange for greater cooperation (which has been suggested already). I might simply place a huge bounty on the head of bin Laden, the heads of the Taliban top people, etc, collectable on proof of death or capture. By huge, I mean something to really drive people, say a hundred million dollars on bin Laden. The bounty might apply no matter where it the world he was captured/killed. I say I might do that, it would depend on the information available to me as President, which I'm not.

But so far, for the most part, there just isn't enough information to do much more than Bush is already doing.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-10-27 22:56 ]</font>

Strategy and Spin for Success. HTH

sv81 wrote: So let's put this out there ... what if there *was* a non-military solution to this problem out there? Chances are we wouldn't even know what it was because most Americans don't even know the bare outline of events in that region. If you don't want to go for "compassion", let's at least start with bare comprehension.

There is a non-military solution. Afghanistan can turn over Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network for trial in court on the accusation of terrorism and mass murder. Whatever one's problem with another nation-state, it does *not* (at least in my opinion) justify mass murder and the attack of civilians...

Well, in my never-ending desire to alert the forum of the gulf between our perception of the 911 precipitation of the fourth turning and the real truth about the middle east, I have included some news articles.

From Egypt and President Mubarak:


"They (the USA) support Israel whatever, and this is impractical, for if you want Israel to live in peace as a state among the community of the Middle East, you cannot blindly support it," he added. "They must distinguish right from wrong and offer advice
in the general interest," Mubarak stressed.

To see entire article:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...89&contrassID=

Of course, he didn't even get TWO BILLION DOLLARS! What a ripoff! Why do our leaders in the United States give away so much tax money? Was I asked when I voted?

"The United States Senate overwhelmingly passed a $15.6 billion bill for foreign aid on Wednesday, including $2.76 billion in assistance for Israel, more than any other country. Egypt was second, and will receive a total of $1.955 billion."

See at:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...18&contrassID=

Lastly, remember the five suspected terrorist they caught on the ground on September 11th, well, they weren't arabs after all.

"NEW YORK (October 26) - Five Israeli men detained in New Jersey with box-cutters, multiple passports, and $4,000 cash on September 11, the day of the attacks on
the World Trade Center and Pentagon, may be deported back to Israel for immigration violations as early as next week, according to the Israeli consulate in New York.

That post is at:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/1...ews.36989.html

All quotes are from prominent Jerusalem newspapers, the best source of real news for America.

Wonder where the money goes? Check out the Jerusalem Post"

TEL AVIV (October 28) - The decision by the Pentagon
over the weekend to award Lockheed Martin the
contract for developing the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) was
being watched keenly by the IAF and domestic
aerospace industries.

The deal for the next-generation fighter is the most
lucrative military aircraft program ever, and is potentially
worth some $200 billion. The stealth jet, capable of
vertical takeoff and landing, is to become the backbone
of US and UK air forces for the next 50 years.

Lockheed Martin won out over the other US aerospace
giant, Boeing, which risks dropping out of the military
market, or at least face rocky times.

Israel has paid $1 million for observer status in the
competition for the JSF. For Israel, the choice of
Lockheed Martin over Boeing is likely to be well
received, since the air force has a healthy relationship with
Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin is currently producing 102 F-16 I
fighter jets for the air force and has awarded Israeli
industries contracts to offset the $4.5b. cost. Since the
JSF is to be the replacement for the F-16, currently the
backbone of the IAF, the close industry links are
expected to be strengthened. The IAF flies all-American
aircraft and the next fighter jets it purchases will be the
Lockheed Martin JSF.

In announcing its decision Friday, US Air Force
Secretary James G. Roche said Lockheed Martin and its
partners Northrop Grumman and BAE SYSTEMS won
a $25b. engineering and manufacturing development
contract that is expected to lead to orders for 3,000 JSF
jets.

"We looked at performance," he said. "There was no
esthetics, there was no beauty contest."

With such lucrative stakes, Lockheed Martin and Boeing
went all out in winning the contract. But Boeing's
configuration was changed in mid-design and aerospace
insiders said it didn't have the grace of the Lockheed
Martin prototype.

Lockheed chairman Vance Coffman said his company
would honor the trust shown by the Defense Department
"by building a truly remarkable, capable, and affordable
multi-role fighter, on schedule and on cost."

The JSF, to be known as the F-35, will replace the aging
fighter jets of the US Air Force, Navy and Marines as
well as Britain's Royal Air Force and Navy, which want
150 of the planes. It is designed to replace the A-10
Warthog, the AV-8 Harrier, and the F/A-18, besides the
F-16.

The production of the plane has been brought forward to
2005, with the first 22 planes to be delivered in 2008.

Each F-35 will cost about $40 million. The version with
the ability for vertical takeoff and landing will cost more,
but less than $50 million.

On 2001-10-28 13:01, sv81 wrote:
...my never-ending desire to alert the forum of the gulf between our perception of the 911 precipitation of the fourth turning and the real truth about the middle east...

Man, you sure have an agenda to promote, don't you?

On 2001-10-28 13:39, richt wrote:
Man, you sure have an agenda to promote, don't you?

The best way to respond is to quote my favorite author, Thoreau:
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who strikes at the root."

[Mike] All the issues about the other countries HopefulCynic makes are quite right if the US wishes to handle this as a police action, as it has. In all postwar conflicts except this one, we were responding militarily to an external situation for which we did not have a pretext for war. This conflict is different. The September 11 attack *can* be employed as a pretext for a declaration of war.

[Hopeful] When you call for total war, do you mean a war of conquest? That means ground troops, which requires bases in the area, which means we have the choice of striking alliances with Afghanistan's neighbors, or else conquering them, too.

[Mike:] I see a need for a large number of ground troops. I don't see a need for bases *outside* of Afghanistan. Why not give the Northern Alliance whatever support it needs to seize airfields that will give us ingress into the country. We will need to supply our troops through neighboring countries, but getting the Pakistanis and others to agree to this is *much* easier than getting them to agree to American troops on their soil.

There is no way we can kill al-Qaeda and Taliban forces while they remain mixed with the general population without also killing a great many innocent civilians. We must achieve a separation. We cannot do this from the air, we have to be on the ground in sizable numbers. We could offer protection, food, shelter and medical care to civilian refugees in areas held by Americans and our Afghan allies (this might also help out the Pakistanis who have a serious Afghan refugee problem). We could drop leaflets in the Taliban-held countryside urging those who wish to avoid the war to come to the designated areas where you will be safe and where food and medical care is available. This would produce the separation we desire and permit the use of raw US military might to wage a war in the hinterlands without innocent civilians being killed. We can claim those civilians still in Taliban-controlled territory aren't innocent (they could have left for the refugee facilities).

[Hopeful] But make no mistake about the intentions of Japan and even more so Germany.

[Mike] Intentions are meaningless without the might to back it up, and Germany didn't have it. After failing to defeat Britain by herself, Germany had invaded Russia and opened a second front. The economic potential of Britain and the USSR combined was greater than that of Germany and Italy. By 1940, British aircraft production had surpassed Germany's. (After failing to vanquish the RAF in 1940, the Luftwaffe fell further and further behind in air power). Britain would remain secure, and in those days she still had the resources of a world-girdling empire to draw upon. Unlike France, which was vulnerable to blitzkrieg because of its small size, the Soviet Union was too big to blitz. The war promised to drag on for a long, long time.

With all her productive capacity already engaged in the immediate war effort, Germany was in no position to develop fission weapons and had very little in the way of a program. What little work they were doing was in heavy water, which is a wrong approach. On the other hand, the US started its program *before* Pearl Harbor. We were pursuing the right approach and would have had the capability to credibly threaten nuke attacks on the German homeland by the early 1950's.

Thus, Germany posed no threat at all to the U.S. homeland. They *did* pose a threat to the European balance of power, and to the whole world order. As the greatest country in the world it was incumbent that the U.S. play a leadership role in shaping the world order. FDR understood this and when a pretext arose, used it to wage war on both Germany and Japan and so assert American hegemony.

The difference between Pearl Harbor and WTC is that the president in 1941 wanted to wage war, and the president today does not. Had Pearl Harbor happened in 1929, I'm sure Hoover would have been unwilling to wage war as well. Bush's desire not to wage war is entirely consistent with our position in the saeculum.

what's "up" with the Stock Market? Why is it ignoring all bad news, and what can it possibly be hoping for that warrants this upward trend?

what's up with the stock market? well, let's see...we have had a massive liquidity infusion over the last few months that dwarfs the one that caused the big bull run of 1999. we have the lowest interest rates that we have had since the 1960s. we have had government budget surpluses recently which allow them room to implement policies to stimulate the economy in a massive way...i could go on but that should be sufficient for now.

this weeks's Barron's also mentioned that Value Line's asset allocation model has just given the strongest buy signal on stocks that it has given for several decades. and i know that this also holds true for several other long term market models that have proven very reliable in the past.

as i have said on here before, we began an 18-20 year technology based boom period at the end of the gulf war just as we did at the end of every trough war of the past such as world war II, the mexican war, the spanish-american war, and the french revolution. but what tends to throw people off is that there is a lull in the middle of that boom that brings out the pessimists and bears in droves just as this latest downmove has done. we saw the same thing with the panic of 1907 leading into world war I and the market slowdown of the late 1950s along with the cuban missile crisis of 1962 leading into vietnam.

if past patterns hold true we should see a period of relative prosperity in the stock market and the economy in general for the next 7-10 years. and if the stock market should come down in the near term and exceed the september lows ( which i quite frankly doubt that it will do) that should prove to be an even greater buying opportunity over the next few years.

as for the market being "overvalued" i will only say again what i have been contending for years now, and that is that valuations will continue to remain at seemingly overvalued levels because the existence of a total fiat based currency system in the world today artificially inflates those valuations and will likely continue to do so until distrust in that system becomes unmanageable and it is replaced by a specie backed system once again. to expect general stock valuations to reach levels that would have been considered "good value" back in the 70s is, i contend, a major mistake... at least for now.

as i have said before, there are certainly storm clouds on the horizon for both the financial markets and the economy, but they are still on the horizon. there are still, i believe, lots of opportunities to be taken advantage of over the next few years before a recession hits that will make this one look quite tame by comparison.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: enjolras on 2001-10-28 20:58 ]</font>