[IP] From Neil Munro; This is why I love IP.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tom Fairlie <tfairlie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 6, 2005 2:11:34 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] From Neil Munro; This is why I love IP.
*yes* comment. :-)
Mr. Munro's blunt opinion is as refreshing as it is misguided.
A big stick is always more *effective* than walking softly, but
that doesn't mean it's always *better*. He dismisses Mr. Syme's
comment as some sort of utopian drivel, but simultaneously
skates past an even better reason for the peace: Ireland's
economic growth in the 1990s.
Once Ireland invested in its economy, it was more than able to
take advantage of the high-tech boom of the 1990s. Naturally,
they paid the price for this participation (read, speculation) as
well, but it certainly had its benefits. Once Irish youth began
to notice that they could make a decent living, the desire to
pick up a rifle or dish out some punishment beatings lost some
of its allure.
Likewise, Mr. Munro's other examples run out of gas too. The
U.S. didn't exactly whip a Filipino "insurgency"; we both invaded
and betrayed them after freeing them from Spanish rule. Our
"victory" came at the expense of between 250,000 and 1 million
Filipino lives and sent the country into decades of problems and
instability--the effects of which still exist today. In Vietnam, same
thing. We weren't invited, we had no grand plan, and we certainly
had no exit strategy. Does evacuating from the roof of a hotel
sound like a plan? Does putting a hit on Che after he had
already run out of gas speak about the effectiveness of using
force to quell an insurgency or simply the determination and
billion-dollar funding of a U.S. organization that held a grudge?
The point here is that economics often has a much greater role
than either military action or diplomacy. If much of the developing
world was drowning in economic opportunity, they wouldn't be
weighing the option of throwing a bomb in their back seat and
blowing up a police station. This is an area where the U.S. can
play a great role. Why didn't we invest in Afghanistan legally and
help them to build a pipeline through their country 10 years ago
instead of destroying what infrastructure they had? Why haven't
we been tying our purchases of Saudi Arabian crude oil to
democratic reforms there instead of allowing their indirect
funding of militant radical groups to continue unabated?
Methinks stopping an insurgency here or there is not the
problem and that there is no good answer anyhow. The real
answer is in avoiding the reasons for an insurgency in the
first place. For example, is fighting the insurgency in Iraq
even worth it? What is the limit on time, lives, or dollars that
we will place on such an effort? Is a limit valid? According
to Mr. Munro, success will come only if we invest in these
three areas and stay in the fight until we prevail. I hope he
doesn't have to sacrifice a son or daughter to keep his petrol
under 4 pounds per gallon.
Tom Fairlie
www.stopthebuck.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Farber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ip Ip" <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 6:37 PM
Subject: [IP] From Neil Munro; This is why I love IP.
no comment
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Munro, Neil" <NMunro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 5, 2005 8:57:38 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: From Neil Munro; This is why I love IP.
This is why I love IP.
In response to my comment that the Brits defeated the IRA,
Gordon Syme wrote that "the decommissioning of IRA weapons was brought
about through peaceful means. The British did not 'defeat' the IRA, that
implies they won by force. The British and Irish governments realised
many years ago that
the only way to end the problem was peaceful negotiation."
The ability of nice people to believe that eloquence and
civilized conduct trumps war is delightful, just as children's desire to
believe in Santa Claus is delightful. It is certainly much more charming
than belief in a flat Earth, and is somewhat ennobling.
But, of course, it is not true. From space we can see the Earth
is round, and with even a modest bit of intellectual effort, we can
address the question 'What made the parties decide to negotiate rather
than seek complete victory via a little extra violence?' As grade-school
kids recognize, the answer is fear that the enemy can inflict even
greater violence and pain. There is no evidence that man has evolved
into sainthood.
I do hope Mr. Syme and others can continue to believe in the
diplomatic tooth-fairy, and that US leadership successfully balances
society's need for rough-shouldered force with the natural desire for
the dream of negotiated peace.
Having received comments from other IP-readers, I know that some
IP-readers recognize the difficulty of this task.
Like I say, I just love IP.
Neil
Born in Dublin, Ireland.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gordon Syme <gsyme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 5, 2005 5:04:24 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on High-tech army defeats insurgency; May I
citesome examples?
Professor Farber,
for IP, if you wish:
On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 16:35 -0400, David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Munro, Neil" <NMunro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 4, 2005 4:04:53 PM EDT
The Brits defeated the IRA this month
after 25 years and roughly 4,000 deaths.
The decommissioning of IRA weapons was brought about through peaceful
means. The British did not 'defeat' the IRA, that implies they won by
force. The British and Irish governments realised many years ago that
the only way to end the problem was peaceful negotiation.
-Gordon Syme
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as nmunro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as tfairlie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/