The real analogy?
Mar. 30th, 2003 12:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoA few weeks ago, Tom Friedman of the New York Times came up with a striking image. Imagine a table, with a box, Monty Hall Let's Make a Deal-style.
Inside the box is one of two notes: "Congratulations! You just won the Arab Germany. All it will take is the removal of an atrocious regime, and this country will become peaceful, productive, and happy." -- Or -- "Congratulations! You just won the Arab Yugoslavia. This country is so fractious and divided, no amount of gentle perusasion will rule it successfully, so it has to be led by an iron hand, no matter what ideology they may have." Friedman then pointed out that the only way we'd ever know what was in the box was to open it.
Trouble is... I'm beginning to think there's a third note: "Congratulations! You just won Palestine. Only there's 80 times more land mass, and 9 times more people."
This is all by way of pointing to an article in the Asia Times that Tacitus links to. He mentions it largely because it describes how, "an estimated 5,200 Iraqis have crossed the Jordanian-Iraqi border, going back "to defend their homeland" as they invariably put it." Tacitus thinks this is bad because of these ex-pats forming the core of a future guerilla movement against us if or when we topple Saddam.
My point, as we in the US kick back and forth the question of just how difficult this venture will be, is that the Israelis have put forth a lot of military effort in subduing the Palestinians.
For 50 years.
And, while Israel may be said to have achieved some of its objectives because it does, after all, still exist... Can anyone truly say they have won against the Palestinians?
Further... Just how likely is it, do you think, that the US is willing to exert the same proportional effort against the Iraqis as the Israelis have against the Palestinians? More than that, just how effective would such a move be?
For 50 years.
"Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."
Inside the box is one of two notes: "Congratulations! You just won the Arab Germany. All it will take is the removal of an atrocious regime, and this country will become peaceful, productive, and happy." -- Or -- "Congratulations! You just won the Arab Yugoslavia. This country is so fractious and divided, no amount of gentle perusasion will rule it successfully, so it has to be led by an iron hand, no matter what ideology they may have." Friedman then pointed out that the only way we'd ever know what was in the box was to open it.
Trouble is... I'm beginning to think there's a third note: "Congratulations! You just won Palestine. Only there's 80 times more land mass, and 9 times more people."
This is all by way of pointing to an article in the Asia Times that Tacitus links to. He mentions it largely because it describes how, "an estimated 5,200 Iraqis have crossed the Jordanian-Iraqi border, going back "to defend their homeland" as they invariably put it." Tacitus thinks this is bad because of these ex-pats forming the core of a future guerilla movement against us if or when we topple Saddam.
My point, as we in the US kick back and forth the question of just how difficult this venture will be, is that the Israelis have put forth a lot of military effort in subduing the Palestinians.
For 50 years.
And, while Israel may be said to have achieved some of its objectives because it does, after all, still exist... Can anyone truly say they have won against the Palestinians?
Further... Just how likely is it, do you think, that the US is willing to exert the same proportional effort against the Iraqis as the Israelis have against the Palestinians? More than that, just how effective would such a move be?
For 50 years.
"Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."
