[HedgeYourBets]

I have previously promised Olivier to put my version of action if I were the President of the United States on 9/11. I've written him a personal message but he insisted we discuss it publically so here it goes:



The right policy for the United States given all the political, military and economic power of the country is to take a very agressive approach. The nation should go on the offensive on each and every available front both externally and internally. The following strategem should be followed:

#1 Identify the enemy

#2 Identify allies, potential allies and non-cooperative regimes

#3 Given #1 and #2 identify the theatre of operations

#4 Given #2 identify ways to deal with non-cooperative regimes
a) Political Action
b) Military Action
c) Economic Action
d) Combination of a-d

#5 Identify political effects and constraints
a) Internal
b) External

#6 Identify and prioratize all the available methods for both internal and external use

#7 Identify economic limitations

#8 Identify political limitations
a) Internal
b) External

#9 Identify military limitations and domestic capabilities


Utilize all the means available given #1-#9 while maintaining the momentum both internally and externally within and outside the country. There comes in you Afganistan, Axis of Evil, War on Iraq, Democracy across the ME, unilateralism, sanctions against Syria, immense pressure on Israel and so on.

I am pretty sure that something like above was what the president came up with. If you, or the world, for a second thought that the US would not engage the Middle East on every possible front in an agressive manner it was if only a dillusion. I am pretty sure all the European governments have realized it. It was only the matter of choice of how to support the US given all the domestic and international limitations. I very sure that when the Bush administration was planning the war on Iraq it was very well aware of the world outcry, of the fact that France (given all the historical precedence) would refuse, of the political responsibility in-front of the American people, of the monetory burden and of the commitment ahead. No matter who would be the president on 9/11 Bush, Gore, Kerry or even Jaq Chiraq (if God forbid he was an American) the sequence of events would be very much the same if only different in the time-frame.

[S.T.D.]

Posted by Olivier:

I have several objections. Let me start with that one : don't you think it's precisely that kind of "logical thinking" that got us (I mean "you" but you see what I mean) in Iraq?

Yes, that's exactly what got us into Iraq. I think the president did exactly the right thing - there was no alternative, really.

[Big A]

Posted by Olivier:


and is this clever way of thinking also going to help us find a way out, does it tell how you can get back things under control?


This is not a moral question it's a question of strategy. Your way out was to give more money - America"s way is to take a more agressive action. I think the difference is quite clear.


In 1939 the all powerfull Britain and France (both could have crushed Hitler in a month - Czechoslovakia alone could have crushed the Furher in 1938!!!) Europe thought it could accomodate Germany via political means thus avoiding military action. Now they apoligetically call it "appeasement" but in reality it was not - it was lack of interest in a freaking COMMITMENT.

There is no right way to politically accomodate the Middle East if not through force.

Money - they don't need money, they have oil.

Political pressure - Saddam would sit there till his death given all the oil. Such are the leaders in the ME. No Arab leader has volunterily left power in the last 30 years - at least not in my memory.

Military pressure - None there besides US and Britain flying occassional air-patrols.

Economic pressure - with all the oil they care less as long as they could afford their own security. The Arabs make over half a trillion dollars a year on oil!!! - in fact it is so much money that it could physically subsidise healthcare system of entire EU (new and old) for a year!!!!. Much of the revenues from these countries go into security internal and military. Saudi Arabia is considered one of the largest security spenders in the world after US, Russia, and China given the percentage of revenue and money-wise.

The only Arab countries that have some kind of a political life, including that of normal dissent, are the ones without OIL or OIL related facilities. I can only think of only one such country - Lebanon. You can also add Palestinians to the list as well. Neither have much to do with oil and for both the political life is that much more diversified then in all the other Arab states combined.

[LottiFurmann]

Identifying is the main thing in resolving the issue, any issue. Action is secondary. If you know exactly what to do and are set on doing it (staying the course) - your action would always be justified.

You are an engineer, I think me and you approach issues in exactly the same way.

[radikal]

compared to what?

the museum heist was proven to be an inside job.
the so called anarchy was proven to be overblown.
..and so on..


Arent you the same guy who declared with absolute certainty that it would all result in thousands if not millions of casualities? weren't the radicals, who claimed there were no WMD, predicting that the entire region would wind up in a nuclear firefight? See the point is, rhetoric is rhetoric and facts are facts.


(Waiting to hear you blame it on some Jews........)

[Big A]

Anyway, you've proposed no alternatives (since that's what the thread is about) all you've done is introduce yet another bashing thread. Once again you've pretty much wasted everyone's time.

[Fegasderty]

Posted by Mediocrates:

compared to what?


I have the same question, compared to what?


I don't recall France engaging in any military action in general since 1956 and especially I don't recall any action where France, nor Britain, nor Latvia had to invade, occupy, and rebuild a country. The only OTHER country that did that was the USSR. I hope you are not comparing US to the USSR.


Europe could not even resolve the freaking YUGOSLAVIA!!!!! If the US would have taken your example I can only imagine the trouble we would be in. By the way why did America ever got itself involved in Yugoslavia? Olivier any remarks? Why didn't France do all the bombing and mediating and quiting the local nerves? WHY THE US?




I know the answer - I just want you to say it.

[TorryJens]

By the way, Olivier,

Previously you told me that Rumsfield, Bush, Chaney, Wolfovitz, and the other so-called "Neo-cons" are ideologists.

I am just wandering what is their exact ideology?