Italian nun shot dead by Somali gunmen - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-18-2006, 02:52 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 04:01 AM
Do you put all Blame on Bushes plate???
__________________

__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 02:54 PM   #92
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 06:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
Do you put all Blame on Bushes plate???


for the things i just listed, yes.

he is, after all, The Decider.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 02:58 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 04:01 AM
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 is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 03:02 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 04:01 AM
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.
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 03:15 PM   #95
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:01 PM
I think we may be slipping off topic here, guys...
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 03:29 PM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:01 AM
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.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 05:25 PM   #97
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:01 PM
Well, if I may be so arrogant as to start by quoting myself...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 07:13 PM   #98
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:

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)..
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 07:23 PM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

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.”

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

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.

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

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.

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland


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.


Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

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.”


Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

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?”

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

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.

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

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.

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

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.

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland


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.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 09:56 PM   #100
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:01 PM
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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"?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 08:55 AM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:01 AM
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."
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 09:03 AM   #102
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 06:01 AM
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.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 10:15 AM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 12:36 PM   #104
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean

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 is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 02:42 PM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:01 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com