RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 21:29:42 GMT

  • Next message: John Wilkins: "Re: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence"

    Received: by id VAA10422 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:39:42 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
    Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:29:42 +0000
    Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence
    From: Steve Drew <>
    To: Jom-emit <>
    Message-ID: <>
    Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2002 21:34:15.0426 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB97A620:01C1C09F]
    Precedence: bulk

    > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:42:31 -0500
    > From: "Scott Chase" <>
    > Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence
    >> From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <>
    >> Reply-To:
    >> To: <>
    >> Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence
    >> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:46:28 -0500
    >> Hi, Scott, I don't have time to repeat the several longish emails I have
    >> posted over the last months on US response to Sept. 11, so I ask you to run
    >> those down in the archives if you are interested in a fuller response to
    >> your questions and statements.
    >> In brief summarization: the US should have treated Sept 11 as a criminal
    >> matter, not one of "war", taken the Afghan gov't up on its offer to
    >> extradite bin Laden, after providing an indictment (standard extradition
    >> procedure), tried him as we did the attackers of the WTC a few years ago
    >> and
    >> more recent US embassy bombings.
    > Care to predict how many decades that would have taken? Maybe our up front
    > "in your face" military approach (coupled with going after the money trail
    > of the al-Qaeda networks) redeced the ability of the terrorists to carry out
    > some other things they may have slated. OTOH trying to go through the
    > process of extradition would have left the training and planning apparati
    > intact within Afghanistan. They may have suffered enough of a setback due to
    > our intense bombing campaign coupled with Afghan friendlies helping us on
    > the ground to have weakened them somewhat. Slaying the hydra will not be an
    > easy objective, but the first step seems to have been in a positive
    > direction IMO. I could be wrong.

    If i understand correctly, only 3 governments had diplomatic relations with
    the taliban, so there were no extradition treaties to use. If they were
    offering to shove him on the first plane to America it could have been very
    >> The US should have carried a few
    >> target-hardening procedures, rather than embrace 'for-show-only' fake but
    >> highly visible security measures. The US should, and may still yet, turn
    >> the
    >> WTC site into a memorial that will stress our values of democracy, social
    >> responsibility, tolerance and optimism. And the US should have initiated
    >> well-crafted interactions and dialogue with cultures and countries whence
    >> the WTC attackers sprung.
    > The terrorists want us out of Saudi and dislike our stance towards Israel.
    > They probably don't like our relationships, however strained, with the
    > leaders in Saudi, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. It's hard to have a dialogue
    > with extremists indoctrinated within the world-view that we are evil
    > incarnate and Zionist co-conspirators.

    I thought Saudi was the main point of concern, though they seem to forget
    how the Allies sorted out their intra arab/muslim conflict.

    I'm sure Saddam will grant them their religious and political freedom if the
    Allies left Saudi and he changed his mind.
    > At least some of the gov't entities in these countries are trying to get the
    > ball towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians rolling. I haven't
    > read up enough on the proposal Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah has been touting
    > to know how much it entails beyond Israel returning to pre-1967 borders in
    > exchange for peace and Arab recognition. Abdullah appears as a moderate in
    > this, which may not go over well with the Islamist extremists, those same
    > people whom we are supposed to be dialoguing with. I have my reservations
    > about the house of Saud, but if Abdullah can pull off a peace deal, more
    > power to him. I don't see entities like al-Qaeda attempting something such
    > as this and I'm wondering how Hamas and the multitude of anti-Israel
    > Islamist groups will react to the possibility of a comprehensive peace (even
    > if a Palestinian state might evolve from it eventually).
    > Nonetheless, the hydra remains and there are other heads to lop off ASAP.
    > Your calls to more diplomatic methods are noble, but I prefer gunship
    > diplomacy when it gets down to a serious situation as we have now.
    >> In other words, we should be demonstrating the
    >> qualities that have made America admired around the world, and not those
    >> that, along with some other international policies, are earning us
    >> contempt,
    >> arousing fear, and confirming suspicions that the US is turning into a
    >> lone-dog and unaccountable country.
    > What happens *if* the U.S. and Russia start co-operating. Aren't we possibly
    > entering into the Georgian conflict?<

    Got to as no one is sure where the oil pipelines will run in this region.

    > As much as I might enjoy ragging on the
    > Brits, they will (however begrudgingly, reluctantly and critically) probably
    > stick by us.

    Think of us standing in your chariot reminding you "you are mortal Ceasar"



    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 22:00:22 GMT