Italian nun shot dead by Somali gunmen

[Justin24]

Do you put all Blame on Bushes plate???

 

[Irvine511]

Do you put all Blame on Bushes plate???

for the things i just listed, yes.

he is, after all, The Decider.

 

[Justin24]

So do you blame him for creating hurricanes with his godlike powers, Do you blame him for China and their creation of there stock pile of nukes, which Clinton could have prevented. Or when Clinton could have taken out Osama after Sudan offered him up to the Clinton administration. Do you blame him for Albright sipping champaign with Kim Jung Ill?

 

[Justin24]

Bush hates black people remember he hates them so much he gave 15 billion dollars to help Africa out and canceled there debt. Those damn republicans. Raise Taxes now.

 

[yolland]

I think we may be slipping off topic here, guys...

 

[AEON]

So what do we do about a mindset that could lead to the killing of a nun hospital worker? What are the non-militaristic soultions? Is it even possible to negotiate even in the slightest?

I simply do not see many choices left, but I would like to see other REAL plans for dealing with these folks.

 

[yolland]

Well, if I may be so arrogant as to start by quoting myself...

Nothing like a perception of oneself as embattled and aggrieved, plus living in heavily militarized environment where civil society is weak and civic institutions widely loathed, to facilitate a little theological opportunism.

...I think this acknowledgment is a necessary jumping-off point. Negotiating with whoever killed Sister Leonella is pretty much moot; we don't know (yet, anyway) who did it or what their connections might be, and anyhow, that much has little connection with US national interests. No one has mentioned it in here so far, but the President of Somalia--himself a Muslim, himself a "former" warlord presiding over an extremely weak and fragile government--was also just the victim of an attempted assassination. The situation is symptomatic of a much more general feature of the problem of addressing Islamist terrorism: like other terrorists they are, with some exceptions, decidely sub-state actors, and often quite hostile towards their own (often weak and fragile--or "strong" only by virtue of authoritarianism) current "host" governments as well. Certainly one possible "solution" for this is treating terrorist groups whose primary locations are known as if they were state actors anyway by militarily attacking them, but to use your recent metaphor, this strategy has a strong tendency to lead us into "soup sandwich" territory, particularly if a concerted attempt to minimize civilian deaths is made, as it must be. (Anyone have a plan for invading and forcibly restructuring Pakistan, a state with plenty of extremists and plenty of nukes as well, that wouldn't result in quagmire and further inflame world Muslim opinion? Nope, and that's a big part of why Musharraf is still considered an "ally.")

Given the geopolitical scope of the problem, and the supranational nature of many of the most powerful terrorist groups, I can't see a military solution as an even remotely adequate or feasible overall answer, though it may be the best one in certain specific cases. Since the political world still operates by the nation-state model, I think we really have no choice but to start there. Stronger condemnation of "ally" governments' more egregious human rights violations (and suppressions of political reform); willingness for the time being to negotiate with Islamist governments as they are, leveraging our ability to influence economic development in exchange for clampdowns on resident militants; getting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process back on track; working with European governments to change the ghettoization dynamic which isolates so many European Muslims from mainstream civil society; condemning (not censoring) Islamophobia in our media, in return for Muslim governments condemning Euro/American/Israeli-phobia in theirs; more use of multinational peacekeeping forces (of adequate size, mandate, and relationship with resident governments) in the most war-torn countries; facilitating interreligious dialogue (more diplomatically than by the Pope's latest rhetorical methods); more multilateralism and bringing-in of other non-Muslim (and non-Western) nations into our planning on all the above; and above all not panicking and succumbing to a victim mentality, nor allowing other governments to do the same. No one of these strategies is in and of itself adequate, but if robustly implemented together...well, it would be a start. Nothing more than that, nothing less either; this is a work in progress and solutions won't come quickly or easily, no matter what route we take.

ETA: Also trevster made some good points here.

Somalia Islamists vow to punish nun's killers

Reuters/IOL, September 18, 2006
By Sahal Abdulle

Powerful Islamists in Mogadishu vowed on Monday to bring the killers of an Italian nun to justice and said they were confident the shooting would not undermine the unprecedented peace in the capital...The killings were a blow to Mogadishu's new Islamist rulers' attempts to prove they have pacified one of the world's most lawless cities since chasing out U.S.-backed warlords in June.
.............
Sunday's killings were followed on Monday by an assassination attempt on President Abdullahi Yusuf in the provincial capital Baidao, which is outside the control of the Islamists. One person was killed in that blast. [Update: Now they're saying "at least" 11. ~y.]

Borne out of local courts practicing strict sharia law, the Islamist movement in June seized Mogadishu from US-backed warlords who had run it for the past 15 years. The Islamists have brought some order to the capital, which was awash with guns and where assassinations were common.

 

[A_Wanderer]

are you kidding me?

fine, i condemn the entire bible. it's a load of crap. you're foolish to believe it.

(how does that feel?)

Fair!

We have been allowed to offend Christianity for centuries and it has been great, it's only fair that the same right is excercised against Islam; it claims to be a universal religion that trancends race therefore the arguments that criticism equates to ethnocentrism and racism is both having your cake and eathing it too (at least when a Muslim public affairs group makes the claim)..

 

[AEON]

Given the geopolitical scope of the problem, and the supranational nature of many of the most powerful terrorist groups, I can't see a military solution as an even remotely adequate or feasible overall answer, though it may be the best one in certain specific cases.

I agree. I am generally more in favor increasing the role of the Special Forces and “Surgical Strikes.”

Since the political world still operates by the nation-state model, I think we really have no choice but to start there. Stronger condemnation of "ally" governments' more egregious human rights violations (and suppressions of political reform);

What do you mean by “stronger condemnations?” Sanctions? It seems sanctions only contribute to the poverty of the general populace (thus giving more “sway” to the extremist) and line the pockets of those already in power.

willingness for the time being to negotiate with Islamist governments as they are, leveraging our ability to influence economic development in exchange for clampdowns on resident militants;

In principle I agree with you. We can’ expect governments to change overnight.

getting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process back on track;

I think we can all agree this will never be settled while the nation-state of Israel exists.

working with European governments to change the ghettoization dynamic which isolates so many European Muslims from mainstream civil society;

Are you speaking of Affirmative Action for Muslims? I am weary of any form of preferential treatment to students and employees based on anything except their track record-even when it has “good intentions.”

condemning (not censoring) Islamophobia in our media, in return for Muslim governments condemning Euro/American/Israeli-phobia in theirs;

How in the world could we accomplish this? Who would enforce it? Who would determine what is objective news and what is “Islamophobia?”

more use of multinational peacekeeping forces (of adequate size, mandate, and relationship with resident governments) in the most war-torn countries;

I am in 100% agreement on this, especially in Africa.

facilitating interreligious dialogue (more diplomatically than by the Pope's latest rhetorical methods);

Definitely a great idea. The problem currently is that many Muslims will not openly engage in these sort of public forums.

more multilateralism and bringing-in of other non-Muslim (and non-Western) nations into our planning on all the above;

In theory I agree, but it seems so many nations put their own interest before global interests.

and above all not panicking and succumbing to a victim mentality, nor allowing other governments to do the same. No one of these strategies is in and of itself adequate, but if robustly implemented together...well, it would be a start. Nothing more than that, nothing less either; this is a work in progress and solutions won't come quickly or easily, no matter what route we take.

I mostly agree – but I’m not sure what constitutes a “victim” mentality in regards to international affairs.

 

[yolland]

Well, at least we agree on some points; that's a start. I'm still waiting to hear the outlines of what a purely military solution would look like.

What do you mean by “stronger condemnations?” Sanctions? It seems sanctions only contribute to the poverty of the general populace (thus giving more “sway” to the extremist) and line the pockets of those already in power.

Diplomatic sanctions as opposed to economic ones, perhaps. But simply issuing more official criticism, particularly of authoritarian-leaning "allies," was more generally what I had in mind.

I think we can all agree this will never be settled while the nation-state of Israel exists.

I doubt very much "all" in here would agree with that. Myself, I am somewhere in the middle. I do think though that more changes of heart (or perhaps more correctly outlook) along the lines of Sadat's and (King) Hussein's, at the governmental level, are still possible given adequate international support for negotiations, and that this could have a trickledown effect over time. It would not satisfy the extremists, granted, and this means among other things that a great amount of aid--economic, security, etc.--for the Palestinians would be required to avoid creating yet another failed state bedeviled with militants. A cut-and-run approach would be a disaster. I am abivalent about whether Iran should play any formal role (they would, of course, play an informal one whether we like it or not). In any case their current stance, which is nothing new, is not in itself reason to reject further Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Are you speaking of Affirmative Action for Muslims?

Not necessarily; anyhow, the specific means would need to be left up to the individual countries. Our role would mostly be to nudge.

How in the world could we accomplish this? Who would enforce it? Who would determine what is objective news and what is “Islamophobia?”

There would be nothing to "enforce"; I'm not talking about actual restrictions, just an acknowledgment of what sort of rhetoric is perceived as inflammatory and an assertion that it does not represent the views of the government, accompanied by a reiteration that nonetheless freedom of speech means freedom of speech. Wouldn't you prefer it if more Muslim governments distanced themselves from some of the rhetoric proffered by their countries' "televangelists"?

Definitely a great idea. The problem currently is that many Muslims will not openly engage in these sort of public forums.

But many will, and this is one area where the generally diffuse, nonhierarchical nature of Muslim clerical authority could be an asset. I think ultimately this strategy is a sideshow in that it's not explicitly political, but if nothing else the symbolic value of interreligious dialogue could justify the effort.

In theory I agree, but it seems so many nations put their own interest before global interests.

Don't all nations do that though? Anyhow, yes, this would require concurrently offered incentives/compromises to get involved in most cases.

I mostly agree – but I’m not sure what constitutes a “victim” mentality in regards to international affairs.

Basically, a collective self-perception that we're helpless to effect any change in our circumstances ourselves, or that diplomacy can only begin once the other party meets all on our long list of preconditions.

 

[maycocksean]

Yolland, I've said it before and I'll say it again. You rock!

Aeon, I appreciate you having the courage and taking the time to actually debate Yolland on her excellent arguments rather than avoiding them as many posters have.

Unbelievable, some of the things that have been said here. It makes me ashamed to be a Christian. Never mind how Jesus' teachings square with Mohammeds. How do Jesus' teachings square with a lot of the statments made on this thread?

At the end of the day, though still a firm Christian believer, I must agree with Irvine. There is great inherent danger in religion, and ANY religion taken to extreme--including the "right" religion is ALWAYS bad. To be honest, I applaud Irvine's decision to reject religiosity if accepting it must mean accepting the kind of attitudes and behavior bandied about on these threads.

I've known several Muslims throughout my life and none of them have shown any "natural" prediliction to violence due to their faith. I just spent all day this past Sunday with a Muslim, and guess what? He was just a person. Imagine that.

I also feel that there is a LOT of latent racism in a lot of the comments here. Muslims may not all be Arab or "brown" but I read that assumption behind a lot of what is said here. For example no one says much about the largest population of Muslims in the world--Indonesia. Perhaps because most Indonesians don't fit the wild-eyed, "towel-headed", terrorist stereotype. What about the Muslims in China? Or Kosovo?

Christianity has also had a long history of violence done in the name not of some Old Testament God, but of Jesus himself. The Crusades, years of church-sanctioned anti-semitism, persecution of fellow Christians of different doctrinal stripes that including burning at the stake, torture of all kinds etc. There was the Spanish Inquisiton. Not to mention political acts of violence with a religious overtone or justification (perhaps the closest parallell to what many of the radical Islamic terrorists are doing) such as Manifest Destiny and the wiping out of Native American peoples, the NEW TESTAMENT justification for slavery and segregation used in the southern U.S. Even today, extremist Christians feel justified in setting off bombs at abortion clinics, declaring "God hates fags."To not see that Christianity can also be tarred with the same kind of brush as Islam is just blindness. Total blindness.

Look, I'm a Christian and with that comes the admittedly difficult Christian belief that Christianity is the "Truth." However, I believe (and I've expressed this over in the ACLU thread) that the "advantages" that I believe Christianity has over Islam can be expressed without reducing Islam and all faithful Muslims to bloodthirsty savagery. The theological differences, for example, about the best solution to the problem of sin (grace vs. works etc) provide very compelling arguments. Demonizing the Muslim faith is so unnecessary and so counterproductive to any Christian with a sincer desire to "witness his/her faith."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

By Anthony Mitchell, Associated Press | September 19, 2006

NAIROBI, Kenya -- Sister Leonella, a nun who devoted her life to helping the sick in Africa, used to joke that there was a bullet with her name engraved on it in Somalia. When the bullet came, she used her last breaths to forgive those responsible.

``I forgive, I forgive," she whispered in her native Italian just before she died Sunday in the Somali capital, the Rev. Maloba Wesonga said at the nun's memorial Mass in Nairobi yesterday.

Sister Leonella's slaying raised concerns that she and other foreigners killed in Somalia recently are victims of growing Islamic radicalism in the Horn of Africa country, where a hard-line Muslim militia has been expanding its reach.

The shooting was not a random attack and could have been an expression of Muslim anger over remarks by Pope Benedict XVI linking Islam and violence, said Willy Huber, regional head of the Austrian-financed hospital where the Roman Catholic nun worked.

Several Somalis who witnessed the attack by two gunmen also speculated that the killing was related to the pope.

But Abdurahman Mohamed Farah, deputy leader of the Islamic militia, disputed that, blaming it instead on Somali warlords who were driven out of Mogadishu in June.

The nun was the latest victim in a wave of slayings of both foreign workers and moderate Somali intellectuals that has coincided with the rise of the Islamic radicals.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Yolland, I've said it before and I'll say it again. You rock!
Unbelievable, some of the things that have been said here. It makes me ashamed to be a Christian.

Be ashamed all you want of the actions of those whom you think are behaving in a way that doesn't match your view of how a Christian should act.

But you should never be ashamed of being a Christian. Being a Christian means you are a follower of Christ. Are you ashamed that you worship the one who gave up his life on the cross for you?

There have been many instances in which I have not agreed with other Christians and have not liked the way they acted. But I have never been ashamed to be a Christian.

 

[AEON]

Aeon, I appreciate you having the courage and taking the time to actually debate Yolland on her excellent arguments rather than avoiding them as many posters have.

I didn't know I was actually in a debate with Yolland - we were just exchanging some ideas. When I agree with someone - I agree. If I don't - well, I don't.

I respect the minds and views of the people in this fourm, even though I disagree with many of the posts here. There is a wide range of ideas expressed here, and I love it!

I also found out that Melon enjoys "shoegazing" music - which earns instant credibility with me

 

[AEON]

Yolland,

Here is summary of some of the terms and principles that Thomas Barnett writes about. Even though he voted for Kerry, I still appreciate his road map for 'relative' global peace.

Asymmetrical Warfare A conflict between two foes of vastly different capabilities. After the Red Army dissolved in the 1990s, the U.S. military knew it was basically unbeatable, especially in a straight-up fight. But that meant that much smaller opponents would seek to negate its strengths by exploiting its weaknesses, by being clever and "dirty" in combat. On 9/11, America got a real dose of what asymmetrical warfare is going to be like in the twenty-first century.

Big Bang refers to the implied (and sometimes openly voiced) strategy of the Bush Administration to trigger widespread political, social, economic and ultimately security change in the Middle East through the initial spark caused by the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the hoped-for emergence of a truly market-based, democratic Arab state. Thus, the Big Bang primarily aims for a demonstration effect, but likewise is also a direct, in-your-face attempt by the Bush Administration to shake things up in the stagnant Middle East, where decades of diplomacy and military crisis response by outside forces (primarily the U.S.) had accomplished basically nothing. The implied threat of the Big Bang is, "We're not leaving the region until the region truly joins the global economy in a broadband fashion, leading to political pluralism domestically." The Big Bang was and still is a bold strategy by Bush, one that I support. All terrorism is local, so either deal with that or resort to firewalling America off from the outside world.

Caboose braking The situation that arises when a country's elites or more competitive segments (the engine) wire themselves up to globalization more quickly than the weaker portions of society (the caboose) can accommodate. The "caboose" is typically the inland, rural, more agricultural base of the population, which likewise constitutes the bulk of poverty in any country--including the US. Caboose braking can range from voting more populist candidates into office in democracies (e.g., India's Congress Party) to political unrest and violent protest in authoritarian states (e.g., tens of thousands of peasant riots in China).

Connectivity The enormous changes being brought on by the information revolution, including the emerging financial, technological, and logistical architecture of the global economy (i.e., the movement of money, services accompanied by content, and people and materials). During the boom times of the 1990s, many thought that advances in communications such as the Internet and mobile phones would trump all, erasing the business cycle, erasing national borders, erasing the very utility of the state in managing a global security order that seemed more virtual than real, but 9/11 proved differently. That connectivity, while a profoundly transforming force, could not by itself maintain global security, primarily because a substantial rise in connectivity between any nation and the outside world typically leads to a host of tumultuous reactions, including heightened nationalism.

Department of Everything Else 'Back to the Future' proposal to return to the past structure when the Army was the Department of War and the Department of the Navy was the 'Department of Peace' (especially Business Continuity). This Department would fill the gap between the current DOD and DOS, engaging in MOOTW like nation-building, disaster relief, and counter-insurgency. In many ways, it could be a 'virtual' department, bringing together various resources from the government, NGO, and business sectors, along with foreign governments and the lynch pin SysAdmin force. Compare 'virtual' department, with the way movie companies work, coming together to make a film, then dissolving. Such a virtual department would work an Iraq one way and a Sudan very differently. In contrast with the Department on Homeland Security, our first and greatest strategic error in the Long War on Terror, the DOEE would realize that our American networks are only as secure as every network they are connected to. Such a department would feature many more civilian and older, wiser roles when compared with the current DOD.

Disconnectedness In this century, it is disconnectedness that defines danger. Disconnectedness allows bad actors to flourish by keeping entire societies detached from the global community and under their dictatorial control, or in the case of failed states, it allows dangerous transnational actors to exploit the resulting chaos to their own dangerous ends. Eradicating disconnectedness is the defining security task of our age, as well as a supreme moral cause in the cases of those who suffer it against their will. Just as important, however, by expanding the connectivity of globalization, we increase peace and prosperity planet-wide.

Functioning Core Those parts of the world that are actively integrating their national economies into a global economy and that adhere to globalization's emerging security rule set. The Functioning Core at present consists of North America, Europe both "old" and "new," Russia, Japan and South Korea, China (although the interior far less so), India (in a pockmarked sense), Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, and the ABCs of South America (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile). That is roughly four billion out of a global population of more than six billion. The Functioning Core can be subdivided into the Old Core, anchored by America, Europe, and Japan; and the New Core, whose leading pillars are China, India, Brazil, and Russia.

Globalization The worldwide integration and increasing flows of trade, capital, ideas, and people. Until 9/11, the U.S. Government tended to identify globalization primarily as an economic rule set, but thanks to the global war on terrorism, we now understand that it likewise demands the clear enunciation and enforcement of a security rule set as well.

Globalization I, II, and III The history of globalization can divided into three parts, each governed by its own rule set.

Globalization I from 1870 to 1914, was ended by the start of World War I.

Globalization II from 1945 to 1980, was initiated by the United States at the end of World War II, and continued until the effective end of the Cold War.

Globalization III (1980 -2001) has been an era of relative peace and enormous economic growth around the world that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but whose rule sets have now been challenged by rogue states and international terrorists, as exemplified by 9/11.

Greater inclusive What we need to create as we expand our definition of national security crises in the age of globalization. After more than half a century of almost complete isolation from the rest of the world as it sought to guard against the terror of nuclear war, the Pentagon needs to reconnect to the world--to war within the context of everything else. We need to break up the old hierarchies between the "big one" and all the lesser includeds. We need something that covers the whole enchilada--that makes us one with everything. We need a greater inclusive.

Lesser includeds Pentagon long-range planning during the Cold War had been very simple: always keep our forces ahead of the Soviets by matching the size of their forces and pursuing the latest technological advances. World War III constituted the "Big One" against which all long-range planning proceeded. Everything else the U.S. military did in terms of operations around the world was bundled together in the concept of the "lesser includeds." Even though the U.S. military spent over ninety percent of the Cold War engaged in such lesser includeds, its force-sizing principle remained the Big One with the Soviets. The forces of globalization and 9/11 made clear that there wasn't going to be a Big One--the lesser includeds were the whole ball game.

Leviathan The U.S. military's warfighting capacity and the high-performance combat troops, weapon systems, aircraft, armor, and ships associated with all-out war against traditionally defined opponents (i.e., other militaries). This is the force America created to defend the West against the Soviet threat, now transformed from its industrial-era roots to its information-age capacity for high-speed, high-lethality, and high-precision major combat operations. The Leviathan force is without peer in the world today, and--as such--frequently finds itself fighting shorter and easier wars. This "overmatch" means, however, that current and future enemies in the global war on terrorism will largely seek to avoid triggering the Leviathan's employment, preferring to wage asymmetrical war against the United States, focusing on its economic interests and citizenry. The Leviathan rules the "first half" of war, but is often ill-suited, by design and temperament, to the "second half" of peace, to include postconflict stabilization and reconstruction operations. It is thus counterposed to the System Administrators force.

Military-Market Nexus The seam between war and peace, or the link between war and the "everything else" that is globalization. The nexus describes the underlying reality that the warrior culture of the military both supports and is supported by, the merchant culture of the business world. I express this interrelationship in the form of a "ten commandments for globalization": (1) Look for resources and ye shall find, but...(2) No stability, no markets; (3) No growth, no stability; (4) No resources, no growth; (5) No infrastructure, no resources; (6) No money, no infrastructure; (7) No rules, no money; (8) No security, no rules; (9) No Leviathan, no security; and (10) No (American) will, no Leviathan. Understanding the military-market link is not just good business, it is good national security strategy.

Military Operations Other Than War How the Pentagon defines crisis response activity, nation-building, peacekeeping, and so forth--everything outside of major warfare. Abbreviated MOOTW (pronounced "moo-twah"), it held a very low priority before 9/11.

Non-Integrating Gap Regions of the world that are largely disconnected from the global economy and the rule sets that define its stability. Today, the Non-Integrating Gap is made up of the Caribbean Rim, Andean South America, virtually all of Africa, portions of the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East, and most of Southeast Asia. These regions constitute globalization's "ozone hole," where connectivity remains thin or absent in far too many cases. Of course, each region contains some countries that are very Core-like in their attributes (just as there are Gap-like pockets throughout the Core defined primarily by poverty), but these are like mansions in an otherwise seedy neighborhood, and as such are trapped by these larger Gap-defining circumstances.

Rule Sets A collection of rules (both formal and informal) that delineates how some activity normally unfolds. The Pentagon's New Map explored the new rule sets concerning conflict and violence in international affairs--or under what conditions governments decide it makes sense to switch from the rule set that defines peace to the rule set that defines war. The events of 9/11 shocked the Pentagon and the rest of the world into the realization that we needed a new rule set concerning war and peace, one that replaces the old rule set that governed America's Cold War with the Soviet Union. The book explained how the new rule set will actually work in the years ahead, not just from America's perspective but from an international one.

Rule-Set Reset When a crisis triggers your realization that your world is woefully lacking certain types of rules, you start making up those new rules with a vengeance (e.g., the Patriot Act and the doctrine of preemption following 9/11). Such a rule-set reset can be a very good thing. But it can also be a very dangerous time, because in your rush to fill in all the rule-set gaps, your cure may end up being worse than your disease.
Seam States The countries that ring the Gap--such as Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Some are already members of the Core, and most others are serious candidates for joining the Core. These states are important with regard to international security, because they provide terrorists geographic access to the Core. The U.S. security strategy regarding these states is simple: get them to increase their security practices as much as possible and to close whatever loopholes exist.

System Administrators (SysAdmin) The "second half" blended force that wages the peace after the Leviathan force has successfully waged war. Therefore, it is a force optimized for such categories of operations as "stability and support operations" (SASO), postconflict stabilization and reconstruction operations, "military operations other than war" (MOOTW), "humanitarian assistance/disaster relief" (HA/DR), and any and all operations associated with low-intensity conflict (LIC), counterinsurgency operations, and small-scale crisis response. Beyond such military-intensive activities, the SysAdmin force likewise provides civil security with its police component, as well as civilian personnel with expertise in rebuilding networks, infrastructure, and social and political institutions. While the core security and logistical capabilities are derived from uniformed military components, the SysAdmin force is fundamentally envisioned as a standing capacity for interagency (i.e., among various U.S. federal agencies) and international collaboration in nation building.

System Perturbations A system-level definition of crisis and instability in the age of globalization; a new ordering principle that has already begun to transform the military and U.S. security policy; also a particular event that forces us to rethink everything. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 served as the first great "existence proof" for this concept, but there have and will be others over time (some are purposeful, like the Bush Administration's Big Bang strategy of fomenting political change in the Middle East by toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, but others will be accidents, like the SARS epidemic or the Asian tsunamis of December 2004). As a system perturbation, 9/11 placed the world's security rule set in flux and created a demand for new rules. Preemption is the big new rule. By creating that new rule, 9/11 changed America forever and through that process altered global history.

 

[maycocksean]

Be ashamed all you want of the actions of those whom you think are behaving in a way that doesn't match your view of how a Christian should act.

But you should never be ashamed of being a Christian. Being a Christian means you are a follower of Christ. Are you ashamed that you worship the one who gave up his life on the cross for you?

There have been many instances in which I have not agreed with other Christians and have not liked the way they acted. But I have never been ashamed to be a Christian.

Perhaps I should have rephrased it. The behavior of some Christians brings shame on the name of Christ. Whether that has happened on this thread is debatable perhaps, but I'm sure you'll agree that does happen from time to time.

Obviously, I'm not ashamed of being a follower of Christ and my personal relationship with Him is not shaken by the behavior of others.

 

[maycocksean]

I didn't know I was actually in a debate with Yolland - we were just exchanging some ideas. When I agree with someone - I agree. If I don't - well, I don't.

What is it with me and semantics lately? First "ashamed" and now "debate." I could tell that you were enjoying the exchange of ideas, and in fact what I appreciated was your reasoned and respectful tone, plus the fact that you actually engaged Yollands points in discussion rather than ignoring them. Perhaps "debate" was not the right word.

 

[AEON]

What is it with me and semantics lately? First "ashamed" and now "debate." I could tell that you were enjoying the exchange of ideas, and in fact what I appreciated was your reasoned and respectful tone, plus the fact that you actually engaged Yollands points in discussion rather than ignoring them. Perhaps "debate" was not the right word.

Yeah - sorry to call you out on your choice of words.

 

[maycocksean]

Yeah - sorry to call you out on your choice of words.

It's okay. It's been one of those days. . .

 

[yolland]

Thanks for posting the Barnett information, AEON. It reads rather more like a glossary than a plan, but I can deduce a little about what sorts of strategies he advocates from it. A few questions that came to mind when reading it:

--I assume you'd agree that the Administration's Iraq strategy is not currently showing many signs of yielding the desired "Big Bang" effect. In your opinion, what kinds of changes might be called for to make that outcome a reality?

--Do you agree with his assessment of Homeland Security, and could you elaborate a bit on what he finds wrong with it?

--"Pre-emption is the big new rule" strikes me as problematic on several levels--for one thing, I think you could argue that "pre-emptive" thinking underlay a lot of Cold War-era jostling over these "lesser includeds," and for another, what exactly "pre-emption" entails I think requires some well-defined criteria for action, given his own warning that "[rule-set reset] can also be a very dangerous time, because in your rush to fill in all the rule-set gaps, your cure may end up being worse than your disease." Does he offer any such criteria in his books?

 

[maycocksean]

Aeon, I also found Barnett's ideas fascinating. Thanks for posting that.

The interesting thing for me, is that as I was integrating all the different concepts he was developing, the "big picture" didn't necessarily seem to be leading towards pre-emption, at least not as practiced by the Bush administration thus far. So I was surprised by that conclusion near the end.

 

[AEON]

Thanks for posting the Barnett information, AEON. It reads rather more like a glossary than a plan, but I can deduce a little about what sorts of strategies he advocates from it. A few questions that came to mind when reading it:

--I assume you'd agree that the Administration's Iraq strategy is not currently showing many signs of yielding the desired "Big Bang" effect. In your opinion, what kinds of changes might be called for to make that outcome a reality?

--Do you agree with his assessment of Homeland Security, and could you elaborate a bit on what he finds wrong with it?

--"Pre-emption is the big new rule" strikes me as problematic on several levels--for one thing, I think you could argue that "pre-emptive" thinking underlay a lot of Cold War-era jostling over these "lesser includeds," and for another, what exactly "pre-emption" entails I think requires some well-defined criteria for action, given his own warning that "[rule-set reset] can also be a very dangerous time, because in your rush to fill in all the rule-set gaps, your cure may end up being worse than your disease." Does he offer any such criteria in his books?

I have my monthly National Guard drill these next 4 days, then I will offer more of an in depth answer to your questions.

Yes, it is more of a glossary than a plan - unfortunately I could not find an outline of his plan to post. But you can sort of see his general line of thinking by reading this. His blog is very interesting to run through. I thoroughly disagree with him that Kerry would be doing a better job - but I agree on many other of his points. I try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I personally think he would make a good Secretary of Defense.

(BTW- I just watched the "Fog of War" last night - the McNamara documentrary. Great, great movie. It's very balanced - meaning it displays his genius as well as his weaknesses.)

 

[financeguy]

I think we can all agree this will never be settled while the nation-state of Israel exists.

No, we most certainly cannot.

 

[AEON]

Thanks for posting the Barnett information, AEON. It reads rather more like a glossary than a plan, but I can deduce a little about what sorts of strategies he advocates from it. A few questions that came to mind when reading it:

--I assume you'd agree that the Administration's Iraq strategy is not currently showing many signs of yielding the desired "Big Bang" effect. In your opinion, what kinds of changes might be called for to make that outcome a reality?

Basically, I think this will take time. Nobody expected the insurgency to be as big as it is. But if you also look back at Bush/Rumsfeld quotes in 2003 they said over and over again that it will take years to rebuild Iraq.

I hate to say this, but a Democrat who is strong on defense has the best chance of leading the “SysAdmin” force necessary to stabilize Iraq – and then possible creating a ripple effect of democracy in the Middle East. A person like Howard Dean won’t have the trust of the defense community, and a person like Bush/Rice/Rumsfeld won’t be able to unite the country or gather enough international support. I don’t know of a candidate that meets this requirement. A man like Lieberman would have been the Dem’s best chance – but the far left will keep a person like him from getting out of the primaries. Hillary is definitely doing her best to seem like she is “pro-military” – but the defense community doesn’t trust her husband, and that distrust will probably extend to her.

I believe we need a 300,000 to 500,000 multinational peacekeeping force (with Americans NOT providing the bulk of the personnel) to 1) minimize the terrorist attacks on the civilians (return law and order) and 2) get Iraq connected to the global market. The force would be comprised of military police, intelligence, communication technicians, public affairs personnel, engineers, teachers…etc.

The US should continue to have Special Ops and crack Infantry-type soldiers in the country to remove serious threats.

--Do you agree with his assessment of Homeland Security, and could you elaborate a bit on what he finds wrong with it?

I basically agree with Barnett’s assessment of HS. I think that it has too much of an “Ameri-centric” mindset. Like Barnett, I believe the best way to keep America secure is by integrating “Gap” countries into the “Functioning Core.” Barnett argues that this goal needs its own cabinet level chair in order to get financed properly. It needs to be separate from the Department of Defense, CIA, FBI…etc

--"Pre-emption is the big new rule" strikes me as problematic on several levels--for one thing, I think you could argue that "pre-emptive" thinking underlay a lot of Cold War-era jostling over these "lesser includeds," and for another, what exactly "pre-emption" entails I think requires some well-defined criteria for action, given his own warning that "[rule-set reset] can also be a very dangerous time, because in your rush to fill in all the rule-set gaps, your cure may end up being worse than your disease." Does he offer any such criteria in his books?

Barnett argues that any nation or regime that fights to keep their community “disconnected” from the Core should be a target for a Leviathan invasion (regime change) followed by a massive SysAdmin/peacekeeping/get-them-connected ASAP-force. His premise is that war and terrorism in the 21st century will come from leaders trying to keep their countries from joining the Functioning Core. All of the countries in the Functioning Core play by certain rules in order to enjoy the benefits of the global economy. The price of being a member of the Core is that once a country gets connected, they lose a bit of national identity and local leaders lose total control of information – the citizens become more “cosmopolitan.” This is good for women, minority rights, human rights...etc – bad for those who want to remain in total control over their population.

Basically, Barnett is arguing that we can have a long period of unparalleled world peace if we can “shrink the Gap” and “increase the Core.” If we have to use the Big Bang in order to move countries into the Core – then that’s what we (“we” is not just the US, but the other Core countries as well) must do.

 

[BVS]

Nobody expected the insurgency to be as big as it is.

No, Bush and his admin didn't realize this because they didn't care to plan, there were many who were saying this would happen.

 

[U2democrat]

No, Bush and his admin didn't realize this because they didn't care to plan, there were many who were saying this would happen.

 

[Irvine511]

No, Bush and his admin didn't realize this because they didn't care to plan, there were many who were saying this would happen.

sort of like how nobody anticipated the breach of the levees.

there's a difference between underestimating (or, willfully underestimating ... because we know that this administration doesn't want to hear what it doesn't like) and not anticipating.

 

[U2democrat]

And of course we all remember what a stand up job Paul Bremer did...

 

[AEON]

Well - many leaders on both sides of the political fence saw Iraq as a real threat because of WMD. You can't just blame the CIA under Bush because much of the intelligence was gathered in the 90's under Clinton.


Here are some quotes that are calling for action against Iraq from the late 90's through 2003:


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

 

[Irvine511]

Well - many leaders on both sides of the political fence saw Iraq as a real threat because of WMD. You can't just blame the CIA under Bush because much of the intelligence was gathered in the 90's under Clinton.

while most people agreed that Saddam was a threat, a contained threat but a threat nonetheless, only one man thought that this threat was worth waging an all-out, unilateral (by any meaningful definition of the term) invasion of Iraq.

while all agreed on the intelligence, it seemed the Bush administration deliberately cherry-picked the intelligence, and downplayed fears about the post-war, in order to make the intelligence appear more "actionable."

and they exploited 9-11 to a grotesque degree to manipulate the American public into acquiescing support for the war.