Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:03:48 -0400
From: "Garrett M. Groff" <groffg@...design.com>
To: "Razi Shaban" <razishaban@...il.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Free Iraq

Tempting to give a soap-box response, I'll attempt to give this thread a 
graceful exit by saying that I believe the strategic course I've described 
previously is do-able and a welcomed evolution of the US "maintain the 
superpower status quo" vision that so many in power have. The obstacles 
mentioned can be overcome (less painfully than US troops are currently 
experiencing in Iraq). Currently, our choices are: Iraq-style invasion and 
messy/expensive/painful aftermath OR strategic isolationism (where 
intervention is completely shunned). I've proposed an alternate vision that 
is neither of those.

Whether you agree or disagree, it is a broad strategic approach that I 
espouse, not an emotional or reactionary course of action. Security guru 
Bruce Scheier recently blogged about a security mindset 
(http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/the_security_mi_1.html) 
(how's that for an IT security tie-in?). I propose that we (and certainly 
our political luminaries) have a "strategic mindset" in this flatter and 
more globalized world that we live in.

- G


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Razi Shaban" <razishaban@...il.com>
To: "Garrett M. Groff" <groffg@...design.com>
Cc: <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq


> On 3/27/08, Garrett M. Groff <groffg@...design.com> wrote:
>> A thoughtful reply was posed to my address rather than the list. I'll 
>> keep
>>  the sender anonymous & post my reply since others have posed similar
>>  concerns:
> :-)
>
>>  Excellent point. Initially, a "puppet regime" would be in place to run 
>> the
>>  country on a day to day basis. Actually, I'm more concerned about the
>>  pertinent country's 1) access to the global economy as well as 2) 
>> security.
>>  Point 2 is obvious enough, so I'll focus on point 1.
>
> As an American, I can understand how that would be the most important
> things on your agenda. As someone who has lived in a country with one
> of those "puppet regimes," I feel that the only way that these
> countries can become benefecial to the global economy is if their
> people are freed from their imposed ignorance and servitude. Countries
> with 45% unemployment rates, lawlessness and corruption will not
> integrate with the global economy.
>
>>  Simply stated, countries that have or are moving in the direction of 
>> broad
>>  economic integration with the rest of the world (i.e., that are or are
>>  becoming more "globalized," to use the vogue term) tend to be more 
>> moderate
>>  in their ideologies, better (or getting better) in their governance and
>>  governmental transparency, and more economically productive. On that 
>> last
>>  point, I'll take keeping people busy with jobs over the prospect of 
>> millions
>>  of "idle hands."
> ...
>>  Globalization is the answer to Salafist (Sunni extremist)-borne 
>> terrorism in
>>  the long run (or any terrorist ideological movement), as alternate view
>>  points dilute local/regional extremism and, pragmatically, give people 
>> other
>>  things to do. The same effect occurs in rogue regimes, assuming we (or
>>  someone) is able to "persuade" the heads of state in those regimes to 
>> allow
>>  exterior connectivity.
>
> The problem with this globalization is that in conservatives begin to
> feel threatened, and often become extremists. I feel that it is this
> globalization that lead to the extremism that pervades the Middle
> East, creating Islamists. This globalization is the reason people in
> the Middle East cry for Bush's head. The Middle East is the only
> example I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure that
> similar extreme reactions occur accross the globe.
>
>
>>  Economics binds people together, even if they're of disparate cultures 
>> and
>>  beliefs, and gives them a means of constructive, non-violent engagement 
>> with
>>  each other. It leads to idea-sharing that would otherwise be difficult 
>> and
>>  discouraged. It leads to distribution of power away from the central
>>  government, as people compete constructively in the private sector 
>> rather
>>  than just politically in the halls of power. Oh, and it also increases
>>  aggregate prosperity in the region, and by extension, across the globe.
>
> Trade has led to the prosperity of today, but unfortunately I feel
> that the capitalism under which trade thrives leads to very unequal
> distribution of power. Not the thread for that though :-)
>
>
>>  The strategic vision that I'm suggesting is that we use our global power
>>  projection as the initial phase in taking out stubborn regimes. That's a
>>  small part of the picture, but still a necessary piece.
>
> If only those in power wanted to use their power for good, rather than
> expansion of their power, the world would be a much better place. I
> don't know if humankind has it in itself to overcome its
> self-defeating behavior and tries to help those in need.
>
>
> Just my thoughts :-)
>
>
> --
> Razi
> 

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists