4 ms·

There's no plan (international or domestic) to rebuild politically bankrupt states. The idea that a mission to the Congo or the Sudan would be "simple" or "far

by tsally 17y ago

There's no plan (international or domestic) to rebuild politically bankrupt states. The idea that a mission to the Congo or the Sudan would be "simple" or "far simpler than Iraq" is patently false. The actual invasion is a trivial and essentially irrelevant part. In fact, based on the political climate in Africa (or lack thereof), I'm willing to assert strongly that a mission to an African nation would be far harder. We can build a million schools in Africa tomorrow and they'll all be gone in a few years. There are states and leaders that the entire world wants gone. Saddam was one of them. Kim Jong Il is another. The problem is that the world fails to realize solving political bankruptcy is just as important as solving financial bankruptcy. Thomas Barnett is the man to listen to on this stuff: http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_.... Your view is a common misconception that should be corrected.

thaumaturgy 17y ago
> The idea that a mission to the Congo or the Sudan would be "simple" or "far simpler than Iraq" is patently false. How so? You state this concretely as though it's a fact, but you don't go on to support it with any evidence at all. I asserted that it would be simpler due to the relative resources of the hostile forces in the countries, and I still stand by that assertion. I would also cite the article that started this thread; as it said, murdering a single violent leader in these areas of Africa seems to do a pretty good job of taking the wind out of the "rebels'" sails. (I'm using the term "rebel" there somewhat loosely; they really aren't rebelling against anything other than peace.) Whereas in Iraq, the murder of a single violent leader has caused a bloody and violent civil war and furthered racial tensions. Also, this was predictable: I researched the situation in Iraq before our tanks even rolled into the country, years ago, and came to the conclusion that our usual tactics there would cause this sort of conflict. It's hard for me to imagine that actual scholars wouldn't have been able to do a better job of predicting the outcome there. And, the whole point of an armed incursion would be to dispel the current political climate (or lack thereof) and create a new, more peaceful, social climate. > I'm willing to assert strongly that a mission to an African nation would be far harder. Then do so! :-) > There are states and leaders that the entire world wants gone. Saddam was one of them. I question your sense of "the entire world" then. As I recall, there was quite a lot of protest around the world over the U.S. actions in Iraq.
- tsally 17y ago
  I asserted that it would be simpler due to the relative resources of the hostile forces in the countries, and I still stand by that assertion. As I said, the invasion is the trivial part, but you keep focusing on it. I did provide proof by the way. My proof is in the video. Please watch it. Thomas Barnett's whole point is that your way of thinking is outdated. The invasion doesn't matter. There isn't any country the US can't invade. Barnett knows a helluva lot more than you or I and I think you should listen and consider what he's saying. I question your sense of "the entire world" then. As I recall, there was quite a lot of protest around the world over the U.S. actions in Iraq. That has nothing to do whether the world wanted Saddam gone or not. In general, it's safe to assume that (if given the option) the world would like to take mass murders out of power. Disagreeing with the means does not imply disagreeing with the ends in any logic system I know of. EDIT: And, the whole point of an armed incursion would be to dispel the current political climate (or lack thereof) and create a new, more peaceful, social climate. This is exactly right, but Barnett's point is that we don't know how to do that. That's why a mission to Africa is harder; there's less of a foundation to build on in Africa than in Iraq. The fact that we're able to build an Iraqi army and police force of any size is impressive. At the moment such a task would be impossible in Africa. Think about Iraq pre-invasion. They had a uniformed army, police, and some semblance of government. These things do not exist in many African nations.
  - thaumaturgy 17y ago
    So, I think -- but I'm not certain -- that the link to the TED video wasn't in your comment when I first read and responded to it. Or, it was, and I just somehow completely missed it. But, I just finished watching it. It's great! I was disappointed at the audience's awkward laughter to points that I don't think he was joking about, but he makes a very compelling point, and he makes it clearly. That said, I don't disagree with him or you on this, and I wasn't actually just focusing on the initial invasion, though I can see how my statements could be interpreted that way. I'll try to do a better job this time: I think some parts of Africa, like Sudan, would be easier to both develop an initial presence in, and maintain a mostly peaceful presence in, than Iraq. Although you're right to point out that Iraq has more social infrastructure to begin with, that social infrastructure provides resources to "the other side" as well as "our side". In other words, I think that there being less of a foundation to build on in Africa is actually beneficial -- even after considering Barnett's point, and agreeing with it. I think it's beneficial because it allows us to more easily provide resources to impoverished people without having to fight them for it. Think about it: there are no schools to blow up in some of these areas, so we can build them from scratch and introduce education to a population that hasn't had it. I [EDIT: don't] think it's right to say "we don't know how to do that"; though Barnett may say the same thing, I think it's more of a statement that "we don't do that". Certainly Barnett has some good ideas about doing that, as do some aspects of the U.N. and organizations like the Peace Corps. To underline my point: Iraq did indeed have a uniformed army, police, and some government -- and it is the remnants of those things which we are still fighting in that country to this day, and that's why Africa would be easier to administrate.
josh33 17y ago
That TED talk was incredibly enlightening. Political Bankruptcy really seems to be as important to rebuild as Economic Bankruptcy, as a county that is politically bankrupt will never be able to maintain stability.

by tsally 17y ago

thaumaturgy 17y ago

> The idea that a mission to the Congo or the Sudan would be "simple" or "far simpler than Iraq" is patently false. How so? You state this concretely as though it's a fact, but you don't go on to support it with any evidence at all. I asserted that it would be simpler due to the relative resources of the hostile forces in the countries, and I still stand by that assertion. I would also cite the article that started this thread; as it said, murdering a single violent leader in these areas of Africa seems to do a pretty good job of taking the wind out of the "rebels'" sails. (I'm using the term "rebel" there somewhat loosely; they really aren't rebelling against anything other than peace.) Whereas in Iraq, the murder of a single violent leader has caused a bloody and violent civil war and furthered racial tensions. Also, this was predictable: I researched the situation in Iraq before our tanks even rolled into the country, years ago, and came to the conclusion that our usual tactics there would cause this sort of conflict. It's hard for me to imagine that actual scholars wouldn't have been able to do a better job of predicting the outcome there. And, the whole point of an armed incursion would be to dispel the current political climate (or lack thereof) and create a new, more peaceful, social climate. > I'm willing to assert strongly that a mission to an African nation would be far harder. Then do so! :-) > There are states and leaders that the entire world wants gone. Saddam was one of them. I question your sense of "the entire world" then. As I recall, there was quite a lot of protest around the world over the U.S. actions in Iraq.

tsally 17y ago
I asserted that it would be simpler due to the relative resources of the hostile forces in the countries, and I still stand by that assertion. As I said, the invasion is the trivial part, but you keep focusing on it. I did provide proof by the way. My proof is in the video. Please watch it. Thomas Barnett's whole point is that your way of thinking is outdated. The invasion doesn't matter. There isn't any country the US can't invade. Barnett knows a helluva lot more than you or I and I think you should listen and consider what he's saying. I question your sense of "the entire world" then. As I recall, there was quite a lot of protest around the world over the U.S. actions in Iraq. That has nothing to do whether the world wanted Saddam gone or not. In general, it's safe to assume that (if given the option) the world would like to take mass murders out of power. Disagreeing with the means does not imply disagreeing with the ends in any logic system I know of. EDIT: And, the whole point of an armed incursion would be to dispel the current political climate (or lack thereof) and create a new, more peaceful, social climate. This is exactly right, but Barnett's point is that we don't know how to do that. That's why a mission to Africa is harder; there's less of a foundation to build on in Africa than in Iraq. The fact that we're able to build an Iraqi army and police force of any size is impressive. At the moment such a task would be impossible in Africa. Think about Iraq pre-invasion. They had a uniformed army, police, and some semblance of government. These things do not exist in many African nations.
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  So, I think -- but I'm not certain -- that the link to the TED video wasn't in your comment when I first read and responded to it. Or, it was, and I just somehow completely missed it. But, I just finished watching it. It's great! I was disappointed at the audience's awkward laughter to points that I don't think he was joking about, but he makes a very compelling point, and he makes it clearly. That said, I don't disagree with him or you on this, and I wasn't actually just focusing on the initial invasion, though I can see how my statements could be interpreted that way. I'll try to do a better job this time: I think some parts of Africa, like Sudan, would be easier to both develop an initial presence in, and maintain a mostly peaceful presence in, than Iraq. Although you're right to point out that Iraq has more social infrastructure to begin with, that social infrastructure provides resources to "the other side" as well as "our side". In other words, I think that there being less of a foundation to build on in Africa is actually beneficial -- even after considering Barnett's point, and agreeing with it. I think it's beneficial because it allows us to more easily provide resources to impoverished people without having to fight them for it. Think about it: there are no schools to blow up in some of these areas, so we can build them from scratch and introduce education to a population that hasn't had it. I [EDIT: don't] think it's right to say "we don't know how to do that"; though Barnett may say the same thing, I think it's more of a statement that "we don't do that". Certainly Barnett has some good ideas about doing that, as do some aspects of the U.N. and organizations like the Peace Corps. To underline my point: Iraq did indeed have a uniformed army, police, and some government -- and it is the remnants of those things which we are still fighting in that country to this day, and that's why Africa would be easier to administrate.

josh33 17y ago

That TED talk was incredibly enlightening. Political Bankruptcy really seems to be as important to rebuild as Economic Bankruptcy, as a county that is politically bankrupt will never be able to maintain stability.