The Logic Off Topic list

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Dennis Gunn wrote:

> At 1:49 PM -0500 10/11/01, denizen@... wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Dennis Gunn wrote:
> >
> >>  There was nothing subtle about the attack.  Or the Taliban harboring
> >>  bin Laden and his camps.  Or their constantly changing and totally
> >>  conflicting stories about their relationship with him.
> >
> >Nobody doubts the lack-of-subtlety in the 9-11 attack.  I think what Mark
> >meant by 'subtle interplay' was the complex history of interrelations
> >we've had with the middle east (and that they've had with each other) over
> >the centuries.  Not to mention the varied perspectives on those
> >interrelations.
> >
> >To discount all the other possible political motives for the actions
> >against the Taliban, how they might be a small part of a much larger
> >American agenda in the middle east (not explained to the press for
> >political reasons), or how the grossly oversimplified popular version of
> >the story (the one which your metaphor fits perfectly) may just be
> >political spin, does a disservice to the complexity of the situation.
> 
> To blindly assert that whatever the US does [is wrong] *no matter what
> that is* does more disservice IMHO.  More than one party in this forum
> has berated the US for the failure of its intelligence in Afghanistan and
> ironically they were the same people who were berating US policies as 
> basically being too evil and interventionist.  Either someone is 
> attacking us for being too involved or someone is attacking us for 
> being too little involved and it seems that often they are the same 
> someone.   In this case it seems to me the US was doing exactly what 
> our bitchiest critics are always screaming for us to do.  Leaving the 
> Afghans alone to sort out their own problems.  I personally was not 
> of the opinion that that was such a bad approach to dealing with them 
> either.  But it didn't work out.  Now something else is necessary. 
> Too bad but that's the way it goes.  Under those circumstances to 
> call us evil interventionists and the berate us fools for a lack of 
> military intelligence that was the direct result of a "hands off" 
> policy is just too unfair and unkind.

First of all, I never blindly asserted that everything the US does is
wrong.  My whole argument (and my only reason for contributing to this
thread) is to point out that the version of the situation in your analogy
is not even close to the whole story... And since nothing in your response
challenges this, I'll assume you agree.

Now as for the other point you raise... I see those who criticize US
policy in the Middle East more often referring not to the fact that we
pulled out of Afghanistan prematurely (as you suggest), leaving it
destabilized after a decade at war with the Russians.  That merely allowed
it to develop as a training ground for soldiers in a holy war hostile to
the US.  Not inconsequential, but the US policy I see questioned more
frequently is that which allowed such disapproval in the Muslim world to
develop in the first place.  With as much as we've apparently done to piss
these people off, I think we'd have suffered the same fate sooner or
later, availability of Rancho Afghanistan Terrorism Camp or not.

> >  > Again I think it was an accurate metaphor.  What fact has been disregarded?
> >>
> >>  How so?   What did I miss.  Yoonchi says what I see as reasonable
> >>  point of view is stupid.  And so I beg to differ and use a
> >>  metaphorical story to illustrate my point.  What is the fact I have
> >>  ignored.
> >
> >Well, for one, the fact that this is not even about Afghanistan
> >(represented by the guesthouse in your analogy).
> 
> There is no guest house in my analogy.  There is a guest in a house. 

Dude, you are SO splitting a hair.  And you forgot your smiley. :)

> And nothing in my analogy indicates any interest in the house (the 
> territory) whatsoever.  The house is fact not the issue either in the 
> analogy or in the real life situation.

Okay, let me clarify... when I said "this is not even about Afghanistan",
what I meant was "this is not even about the situation in Afghanistan".
And it's not.  It's not about bombing a country and replacing its
government because they're protecting a suspected terrorist.  Is that any
clearer?

> >I don't necessarily disagree with what we're doing in Afghanistan right
> >now, but I have a serious problem with what amounts to blind agreement
> >with national policy, especially against an enemy this determined,
> >ruthless, and intelligent... and arguing the official point of view so
> >vehemently in an international forum is a very telltale symptom of that
> >blind agreement... as well as absence of objective thought.
> 
> Agreement?   Yes.  Blind?  What kind of heightened visual perception 
> is it that makes it easy to see and debate about the ants in grass 
> and difficult to see that what is making your foot hurt is the 
> elephant standing on it?

Hmm...  I think you've just said that it's obvious that what the US is
doing is right.  Sounds like you want to argue US foreign policy...

-Denizen