New Focus in Iraq
Currently, we're spending a lot of money in Iraq trying to build up Iraq's military and police so that they can stabilize the country and we can bring our guys home. This seems like a good strategy, and until recently I was supporting it, but it occurred to me recently that this is building up the wrong element in Iraq. The Iraqi military/police are not much better than the insurgents, and when we leave, we'll be leaving them in power. What we should be doing is funneling more money into pre-existing Iraq companies to help rebuild and maintain the economic infrastructure in Iraq. We obviously still need to train a police force before we leave, but by focusing more energy and money on the economic powers in Iraq, we'll leave them in a better position when we pull out.
Economic powers are inherently more peaceful than military/police powers because the require a stable society in which to thrive. (Actually, I suppose companies that make and sell weapons are probably an exception to this rule, but I still think it applies generally.) Military/police powers require a slightly unstable population, safe enough to do their work without too many of them getting killed, but unstable enough to justify their continued dominence.
posted by LeRoy at 6:47 AM
3 Comments:
This probably doesn't belong here but...,
I've been thinking about Iran and their nuclear program. It sems like everyone in the UN is telling them that they are not allowed to develop an atom bomb. However:
1. People don't like to be told what they can and cannot do.
2. The UN had told India and Pakistan that they were not allowed to develop an atom bomb (but they both disobeyed and they now have the bomb.)
3. The UN is very innefective when it comes to enforcing their rules. The UN has no teeth, no backbone, no stomach, no heart, and no courage.
4. The US is too bogged down in Iraq to be able to do something.
5. Israel would probably make matters worse if it did something.
6. Iran will probably not listen to China nor to Russia.
So, Iran may end up with the bomb.
If they do, then all we can hope for is for them to realize that they will not be able to use it openly without global retaliation.
So, they may start making portable "suitcase size" nukes or dirty bombs and give them to the terrorist.
Now, assuming that:
1. The US's stepped up security has hindered terrorist activities here.
2. The terrorist only care about getting rid of Israel.
3. The terrorist are successful in smugling these bombs into Palestine.
then, they will probably attack Israel.
In this scenario, Israel will be torn over what to do, but the answer should be simple.
Warfare has been evolving ever since war was invented. Changes in warfare have come about because the leading power at the time is the master of the current rules governing warfare thus forcing the weaker groups to play by a different set of rules in order to increase their chances of winning. Just think about Vietnam. When two groups are almost equally matched, they tend to play by the same rules. Think about the French and the British lining their men up at the agreed upon battle field in order to shoot at each other with their muskets.
If the group in power is not able to adapt to the new set of rules, then they usually tend to lose because the new rules tend to favor the weaker group.
So, if Israel gets attacked by a dirty bomb, it should retaliate in kind (An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth). Actually, Israel is a littel more extreme than that. Usually they take a few teeth for every tooth ;)
-j
I agree. The only problem is that Israel is so small, one nuclear bomb can take out half of the country. Two nuclear bombs, and there is no more Israel left to retalliate.
Any nukes used on Israel would leave nothing for the Palestinians to return to. Whoever takes Israel out with nukes would also be desecrating the holy land. But then again, if there's no holy land to fight over, the conflict would finally be over! Let the madness beging ;)
-j
Post a Comment
<< Home