[Rhodes22-list] reply to Dave (Political jiberish - specifically does not apply to Ron)

[Tootle]

Dave:

Excellent reply, still a little wordy, but at least you are working on that.  

You said, “The threat was the Soviet Union, North Korea, perhaps  China. 
The 
interests at risk were OUR interests, not the greater glory of  mankind.” 
Now if you will give your considered thought to the intentions of radical
islamists?  

I will not expound on the subject, it needs your study and analysis.  Over
the last several years several good sources of thought and references to
others have been posted on this forum.

A writer who like you is rather wordy is Craig Winn.  He go goes into the
fine detail of the religious dogma that radical Muslims use to incite
terrorism.  

Fighting terrorist is not "for the greater glory of mankind."  It is self
preservation.  What we are doing is trying to preserve American style
freedom.  The issue is weather we do it over there or here.  Remember who
attacked the World Trade center, which ideology they represented and their
objectives.  

Further, analysis of the people of Iraq suggests to me that we will be there
a shorter time than in Korea.  It appears that the Kurdish area could stand
alone.  However, our interest, that is American interests are better served
by a larger stable area, specifically the whole of Iraq.

In conclusion, you have done good in beginning your analysis.  Now, look at
other possible conclusions available to you. 

Ed K
Greenville, SC, USA
Addendum:  “Knowledge is not something you are born with.  It does not come
easily.  You have to work at it constantly.”  Porter J. Crow


 










Woten wrote:
> 
> 
> Ed,
>  
> First, let me apologize for the verbosity of the following post, it 
> contains 
> roughly 400 words but if you focus you can handle it.  
>  
> To respond directly to your questions, and as an aid to your  education:
> - Germany: We are still in Germany, as you know.  The reason we have 
> stayed 
> in Germany is that WE wanted to forward deploy troops there as part of 
> our 
> Cold War strategy.  Recently troops in Germany have been drawn down as  a 
> consequence of the end of the cold war. but we are still there.  
> Currently we use 
> those forward deployed troops in Bosnia etc.
> - Japan: The  allied occupation of Japan ended in 1952. WE have continued
> to 
> actively seek a  presence in Japan because it provided a forward presence 
> during the cold  war.
> - Korea: We are still in Korea, as you now.  WE want to be there as  part
> of 
> our forward deployment strategy to contain North Korea and perhaps  China.
>  
> Now the common thread in all of the above is that WE want, and wanted, to 
> be 
> there to contain a larger geopolitical threat that is inimical to our  
> interests.  The threat was the Soviet Union, North Korea, perhaps  China. 
> The 
> interests at risk were OUR interests, not the greater glory of  mankind.
>  
> Additionally, there were short periods of time following WWII when our  
> occupation was focused on "rehabilitation" of Japan and Germany, but in
> each of  
> those cases the countries had explicitly attacked us and we were making
> sure  
> that wouldn't happen again.  With Korea there was no "rehabilitation" 
> because 
> we were always supporting the host country/government.
>  
> Map the above to Iraq and Afghanistan:  I argue that the  "rehabilitation" 
> periods in Iraq and Afghanistan are over; "rehabilitation" has  been 
> accomplished.  You can say the "rehabilitation" times are much shorter 
> than with Germany 
> or Japan, but Iraq and Afghanistan's governments and military 
> infrastructure 
> are childs play compared to Germany or Japan's.  If you hang  the top 10 
> culprits in each country the party is over - we've done  that.   
>  
> As to staying on for a longer term, the key thing is to explicitly
> identify  
> why you want to do that.  Exactly what is the larger geopolitical threat  
> (i.e. country or alliance of countries) that would cause us to want to
> stay in  
> Iraq or Afghanistan?  Our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan is necessary to 
> stop 
> exactly which large and fearsome military power or alliance from  invading 
> which other country that explicitly affects our national  security?   If
> there is 
> none, then it’s time to get out.
>  
> Finally in response to your comment: “Oh, bye the way, how long did we
> stay  
> in the country that
> attacked Perl Harbor?”, that country would be Japan and I  discussed it
> above.
>  
> Dave
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Dave%2C-the-liberal-approach-to-problems-tf3154553.html#a8766432
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.