Re: Interceptor downs missile in test over Pacific


"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hs2dnesjUqfifWHZnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jIWdnR7PKdrC4GHZnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:La2dnZkfELXRHmbZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


---[clip]---

This afternoon I played back a recording that I made of "Faith and
Reason," the PBS special series with Bill Moyers and in this case, the
interview with Salman Rushdie. If there was ever a man who should have
a problem with Islam, one would think that it would be Salman Rushdie.
If you recall, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Muslims to
kill him for the sin of writing a book, The Santanic Verses. Rushdie
hid for 10 years until after Khomeini died the Iranian government
backed away

from the fatwa.

The interview was interesting because, despite the fact that Rushdie is
an atheist, he has no problem with religion including Islam per se. He
does have a very serious problem with fundamentalism in all its guises
and has been actively involved in activities to promote free speech.

In the interview he discusses the enormous gulf that exists between the
West and the Arab world and the need to bridge that gulf. He argues
that fundamentalism (and by extension terrorism) cannot be defeated
except through better understanding of our different cultures. Islam
has to be motivated to not only eliminate fundamentalism, but to
eliminate intolerance. That cannot be done by force.

This is clearly not our strategy in our "war against terrorism" and we
are witnessing the results of our heavy handed methods. We are, in
fact, moving Islam closer to fundamentalism, world wide.

This is what I mean when I say we need a different strategy. Our
military cannot solve this problem for us and our policy in using the
military is only making things worse. With all the money that we have
wasted on SDI and the ABM, with no assurance that it will protect us,
how much could have been done to bridge the gulf?

After all, it was not threats that convinced the Iranians to lift the
fatwa against Rushdie -- it was Iran's interest in improving relations
with Britain.

If you are interested, the text of the interview is at:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/print/faithandreason101_print.html


Nice meaningless words. "If" you could come up with a way to solve the
problem, that is not being tried today, and "if" your solution does
indeed solve the problem that would be great. But so far, I have not
heard of anyone who has a "solution" to the problem.

You haven't been looking very hard or else you have been looking for an
easy solution. There are no easy solutions.

Overall, I am attracted by Joe Biden's plan for Iraq in which he proposes
a solution similar to that used successfully in Bosnia. See his op ed
piece in the Aug 24th issue of the Washington Post.
http://tinyurl.com/hj7jd
While not stated in this piece, he also includes strong involvement by
the nations in the area who all have a vested interest in a peaceful
region.



Okay, let us look at what was proposed.

"First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing
it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central
government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border
security and the distribution of oil revenue.". Nice thought, "if" it
works. But here is something to think about. If you decentralized the
government, that means the people in Northern and Southern Iraq, would
have the oil, and the people in the middle of the country would have no
oil revenue to build on. Great for the guys in the North and South of
Iraq, not so great for those in the middle of Iraq.

"First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing
it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central
government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border
security and the distribution of oil revenue." Nice idea, what makes
anyone think that those with the oil will stick to the deal that they
make, even if it were possible to get them to agree? Why would anyone in
their right mind, give away what is in their territory, without some kind
of reward, that matches the "gift"?

"Third, the plan would create a massive jobs program while increasing
reconstruction aid -- especially from the oil-rich Gulf states -- but
tying it to the protection of minority rights.". And how are you going
to convince the oil-rich Gulf states to go along with the plan. And what
happens if they do not want to pony up the kind of money that is
required, without some major benefits in return?

"Fourth, it would convene an international conference that would produce
a regional nonaggression pact and create a Contact Group to enforce
regional commitments.". And what happens "if" you do convene this
wonderful conference, and they cannot produce a regional nonagression
pact?



"Fifth, it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year
and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small
follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any
concentration of terrorists.". And what happens if that does not get the
job done?



"This plan is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which already provides
for the country's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their
own security forces and control over most day-to-day issues. This plan is
the only idea on the table for dealing with the militias, which are
likely to retreat to their respective regions instead of engaging in acts
of violence. This plan is consistent with a strong central government
that has clearly defined responsibilities. Indeed, it provides an agenda
for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian
violence. This plan is not partition -- in fact, it may be the only way
to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq." Isn't that
exactly what part of the problem is, i.e. these"regional" forces are not
able to handle the problem?


You said that you had not heard of anyone who has a solution to the
problem and I pointed out two who have proposed, at least, partial
solutions.

A partial solution, is only a solution if it works, and as the words itself
imply, it is not a total solution, it is a partial solution.

You have questions about Biden's solutions? This is good.
At least this is better than defending a "stay the course" strategy that
is clearly not working. Unfortunately the Bush administration does not
appear to be open to even discussion of alternative strategies but would
accuse those who speak up of "collaboration with the terrorists."

First of all, when someone tells me the Stay the Course strategy is not
working, they cannot say with absolute certainty that it will not work, if
we stay the course. As for alternative strategies, it is still basically
the same story...no one knows if the change of strategy will work or will
just make matters worse. As for any "open discussion", having a more "open
discussion" does not mean that you will arrive at a better strategy, or if
you will end up with a strategy that will not work. In either case, there
is no guarantee that one strategy is better than another strategy.

Overall, I think that the answers to your questions are that the parties
involved ultimately want peace. It is much better IMV to attempt to find
the path to mutual advantage among the parties involved than to continue
our present policies. One of the points that Ricks argues in the book
that I referenced is that the Arab culture seeks negotiation and a saving
of face for all parties. He gives examples of where it has worked, but
also describes how this is not part of the "approved" method of dealing
with the Iraqi groups.

That is the way life is. There is no perfect solution to any problem.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Interceptor downs missile in test over Pacific
    ... If there was ever a man who should have a problem with Islam, one would think that it would be Salman Rushdie. ... "First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. ... The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.". ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Bleak outlook for plans to help Sons of Iraq - A broad plan to absorb Sunni Muslim militiamen wh
    ... Bleak outlook for plans to help Sons of Iraq ... known as the Sons of Iraq or Awakening ... sive government after barely garnering enough support to keep his job. ... Iraqi military officials put together a 17-point draft plan, ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Re: Interceptor downs missile in test over Pacific
    ... The interview was interesting because, despite the fact that Rushdie is ... the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it ... government would be left in charge of common interests, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Republicans Warn They Will Switch Sides If Surge Fails
    ... plan, but in any event, ANY plan has to be evaluated from ... whenever our government sends ... controlled government in Iraq has close ties to Iran. ... Which tells you the democrats plans are a prescription for failure.... ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Republicans Warn They Will Switch Sides If Surge Fails
    ... plan, but in any event, ANY plan has to be evaluated from ... controlled government in Iraq has close ties to Iran. ... We win when the Iraqi government is able to defend themselves without ...
    (soc.retirement)