[lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete's Role Reversal

  • From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 08:15:32 -0500

> [Original Message]
> From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 11/14/2005 2:09:24 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete's Role Reversal
>
> Andy: My definition of defensive is a clear attack, like Pearl 
> Harbor.  In that case most likely everyone would want to 
> participate in some way anyhow.  9/11 was a terrorist attack by 
> an organization, not a state.
>
> I think that's too simplistic.
>
> Can a significant terrorist organization exist without state 
> sponsorship? The original view on this was "no," and hence the 
> invasion of Afghanistan sought to deprive the al-Qaeda varmints 
> of their training centers and Taliban sponsorship.
>
> As we have learned to our cost in Iraq, however, the answer to 
> the question, "Can a terrorist organization exist without state 
> sponsorship?" is "Sometimes it can."
>
> But whether the US seeks to destroy state sponsorship of 
> terrorism or (what should be the new task) discredit the 
> ideologies and destroy the individual terror cells, it is a form 
> of defensive war. And given the proliferation of WMD capacity 
> worldwide, it's a vital defensive war.
>

Far from defensive, it's offensive on ourselves.  Our invading Iraq damaged
ourselves significantly.  Al Qaeda has metastasized and has done at least 3
terror attacks since Iraq; our military is weakened and we lost our
superpower invincibility; we're diplomatically isolated; economically we're
drained; and we're still waiting for the next big attack.  Even with all of
those consequences from this war, people still consider it defensive. 



> Consider that if we continue with the idea of a pre-9/11 enemy, 
> i.e., an attacking state, we will never be prepared for what is 
> coming at us. For the time being, no country is going to declare 
> war on us. But we will likely face:
>
> (1) terror organizations such as Andy mentions,
> (2) non-state terror agents acting with covert support of other 
> governments, and
> (3) free-floating franchised terrorists acting autonomously.
>
> All three threaten a form of war, and responses to all three can 
> easily be considered defensive wars. 


What have been the benefits of waging this "defensive" war?



What most of us seem to be 
> debating is the proper conduct of these defensive wars--police 
> actions, counterinsurgency actions, clever foreign policy 
> decisions, sustained public relations and propaganda campaigns, etc.
>
>

If there's that much debate, then there's no excuse for invading a country.
Question:  If you had to go fight this "defensive" war, would you support
it?  Serious question.  If the law was such that all, no exception, all
people of voting age to age 70 had to fight in equivocal wars, would you
support it?  Or would you look for alternatives to invading?  


Andy Amago



>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: