|
previous home next
Your comments are welcome at wtcthoughts@hugeworld.com
reply:
Chalmers, et al...
In the spirit of thoughtful response and with respect for the foundation of civil ideals behind your carefully crafted petition and call for consideration (included below
http://hero.com/cgi-mod/opine.cgi), I would like to take the opportunity to use the spam door you have opened to comment:
What would you suggest we do that is creative? The problems of power and territorial integrity are very old and most potential responses have been tried countless times. What is a new response?
I think the petition assumes some ideas about the "world stage" that are not fully pertinent. This is not a situation where 'actors' on the world 'stage' can posture and deliver results. This is a crushing hot melting real death for thousands of people in the trenches of the pit, not symbols projected forth on a stage.
I do not think that even the concept of the criminality of these acts survives the border crossings involved, simply put- this is not about justice for criminal acts, but it is about the right to ensure safety and survival, it is about the Integrity of the state. I also do not think that Justice is exercisable in this arena, as there is no convened authority and far too many shenanigans to establish irrefutable proofs of involvement. The projection of 'American' justice system ideals onto the fray of diplomacy simply doesn't survive the transition.
Justice is not about retribution, it is about compelling people to act with respect for rights in the first place. It is well and good to stand back and say, "Justice must prevail" and it should. But, Justice is not simply the judgment of 12 peers, it is also delivered in the structure of a society that refuses to harbor criminals in safety. The foundation of justice is the peer based concept of morality. One man's terrorist is another man's hero.
So, how do we judge a society that condones acts that are fully criminal in our land? In our system, aiding and abetting is also a crime.
The only way for us to establish our own safety in a world that lacks a credible global justice system is to make real our willingness to aggressively eradicate threats. If individuals do not fear their own deaths, then their peers and governments must be compelled to fear for them and restrain them as a result. Were the countries responsible for supporting these gutless thugs to deliver them all up, and monitor the development of new assassins and deliver them to their just desserts, then a military response would be reprehensible.
Under the current circumstances, a military response is most justified. Military threats are the basis of all power, and if our enemies do not believe that we will pull the trigger, they will simply peck us apart one tall tower at a time. Just how much do you think it will take of this sort of destruction before the very fabric of this society's progressive spirit will be torn asunder? Should we wait until someone smuggles a nuke into the harbor?
Before we get too sentimental about moral high ground, let us remember how we got to be here in the first place. Our civilization is based on exactly the same sort of ingenuity exercised by these reprehensible terrorists. We used biologic warfare in the form of smallpox infected blankets to weaken the rightful owners of the land and then took it. We defended it by breaking all rules of engagement and inventing guerrilla warfare. We developed exploitative policies and imported slave labor to quickly develop the rich resources of the most strategically advantageous land. We again prevailed by stoically sacrificing 100s of thousands of soldiers in the short term while we built the most horrible technologies of destruction. We then built the scariest war machine ever created, and we built it on the backs of future generations' ability to economically exploit the riches and technologies this land has offered to us, and pay back all the deficit spending.
So, our advantage is the real estate we have stolen and occupied. Now that the deeds are done, we take the moral high ground, and rightfully so. HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE WINNERS. Progress is dictated by the survivors. Our system of government and justice is the fairest thing going. Please note that no progress can be made without establishing a safe foundation from which to progress. In a competitive (Darwinist) environment, only the ruthless will get to reproduce in the first place. The firm base of every "civilized" society is the threat of personal violence for stepping out of line, this is as true of governments in the world community as it is residents in your community. No threat is credible if it isn't exercisable.
With these ideas in mind, let us consider some facts. Thousands of people are dead, and billions of dollars are thrown away. The consciousness of freedom most Americans have known is severely compromised. The continued threat of further desperate acts hangs in our minds as the true reminder of our predicament. We are all the victims of this attack, as we have lost our innocent belief in the sanctity of our personal safety. The rude reality of the matter is that we live a world inhabited by animals the are as keen and clever and as ingenious as every other animal. We have no enforceable patent on indomitable ingenuity. What we do have is the ability to proactively respond and serve notice that the fruits of attacking this country will be far far more bitter than expected. This country has done more to provide opportunity and help to other peoples and countries around the world than most of us can possibly imagine, and yet in some circles we are seen as a sap. "Walk quietly and carry a big stick" is predicated on the idea that you might use the stick. It has been often noted that a strong facade must be backed up by a willingness to throw a devastating punch without hesitation, or you lack credibility and will be attacked in progressively more ugly ways until you fold.
In terms of a response, I haven't noted any nuclear attacks on known terrorist countries, have you. What other than deliberation are you witnessing? Will a sudden overwhelming military attack stop every possible threat, of course not, will it stop state sponsored organized attacks, very likely. What if we do punish a state that was not involved in this PARTICULAR attack, but that none-the-less is one of the usual suspects? Perhaps this will be a deterrent. If more innocent lives are lost because the governments of these lands have chosen to aid and abet criminals rather than choose a protective course for their citizens, who is to blame?
We have the absolute right in this world to eliminate threats to our safety and security. Now is the time to put up or shut up, let them actively deliver up the criminals, including officials in their own regimes, or face a swift and final answer.
Just one man's thoughts
Charlie
reply:
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Chalmers Browne [mailto:chal@hero.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 4:17 PM
To: charlie.wilcox@checkspring.com
Cc:<snip>
Subject: Re: sharing some ideas RE: thoughtful conversation
Thanks for the excellent contribution to the discussion. As you point out, we are seeing an excercise of restraint at this point from our government; part of the purpose of the petition is to counterbalance the voices complaining against this.
As I have told other people I've responded to, I am not against any number of reprisal options, including many I would have abhorred a week ago. Assasination would be the chief among these.
What I doubt is our ability to "serve notice that the fruits of attacking this country will be far far more bitter than expected" by military means. From the people that trained this guy in the first place, we're supposed to expect a swift and decisive resolution? Seriously, we might be better off leaflet- bombing Afghanistan with Levis and Britney Spears CDs, then moving in tanks to defend the building of
Wal-Marts.
I agree we need to make the consequences for supporting terrorism grave to the sovereign nations that do it. However, what we learned from Libya and Iraq is that governments of these nations consider their people expendable, so reprisals in kind don't hurt them the way we want them to. Hussein is still living like a king, and he doesn't give a damn how many of his people we kill.
It is our prosperity that make us vulnerable. Where else in the world could this attack have had this much impact? A big stick and a credible threat don't mean much to people with nothing to lose.
I don't claim to have the answers. Part of the reason we stirred the pot was because we were sick of hearing people call for mindless, blood-in-the-eye reprisals, and we were even sicker of people saying "It doesn't matter what we think, our government's going to do what it's going to do."
reply:
From: charlie.wilcox@checkspring.com
To: J. Chalmers Browne [mailto:chal@hero.com]
Cc:<snip>
Subject: Re: sharing some ideas RE: thoughtful conversation
As you note, it is the leadership in these nations that must be made vulnerable. While you are being creative in suggesting cultural infiltration, I think your allusion to using tanks to defend economic expansion is more interesting than knocking over the highest hovel in the desert. I hope you do not think that I am suggesting a eye for an eye retribution approach. I agree that the option carries no weight. As you point to Hussein and Gaddafi you begin to point to the real problem- energy policy. As long as we allow ourselves to be beholden to oil interests and let economic threats back the terrorists threats we are the sap indeed.
If the leaders of these countries can not prove themselves to be fair players and simply enjoy the fruits of their historical accident of
petro-dollars, but feel that they must use that as a weapon to aid a highly symbolic fight over the legitimacy of Israel, then perhaps the rights to lead should be limited. Should the Palestinians have had to give up their land? Perhaps not, but what is done is done, and power balances make us all victims sometimes, at least they weren't incinerated by default. If they won't accept the fate and move on, then we continue with the intractable problem we have. Which is fine right up until that lack of acceptance intrudes on our sovereignty. That is the moment to make the balance of power quite clear. So, we might agree on assassination of leadership as sending exactly the kind of signal the US needs, and perhaps Baghdad should get some assistance in reformation. The leadership in Kabul needs to be served painful notice.
We should ask how and where Bin Laden maintains his fortunes. I'd say give him up or face an imposition of secular government might be an option. Imperialistic or simply protective... hard to say, but we must hold a society responsible for the actions of its members. We fought and prevailed over the German's and the Japanese's transgressions and then brought them back into the world. Why doesn't that model pertain in your mind?
-C
previous home next
Your comments are welcome at wtcthoughts@hugeworld.com
|