On 3/27/08, Garrett M. Groff <groffg@gmgdesign.com> wrote:
A thoughtful reply was posed to my address rather than the list. I'll keep
the sender anonymous & post my reply since others have posed similar
concerns:
:-)
Excellent point. Initially, a "puppet regime" would be in place to run the
country on a day to day basis. Actually, I'm more concerned about the
pertinent country's 1) access to the global economy as well as 2) security.
Point 2 is obvious enough, so I'll focus on point 1.
As an American, I can understand how that would be the most important
things on your agenda. As someone who has lived in a country with one
of those "puppet regimes," I feel that the only way that these
countries can become benefecial to the global economy is if their
people are freed from their imposed ignorance and servitude. Countries
with 45% unemployment rates, lawlessness and corruption will not
integrate with the global economy.
Simply stated, countries that have or are moving in the direction of broad
economic integration with the rest of the world (i.e., that are or are
becoming more "globalized," to use the vogue term) tend to be more moderate
in their ideologies, better (or getting better) in their governance and
governmental transparency, and more economically productive. On that last
point, I'll take keeping people busy with jobs over the prospect of millions
of "idle hands."
...
Globalization is the answer to Salafist (Sunni extremist)-borne terrorism in
the long run (or any terrorist ideological movement), as alternate view
points dilute local/regional extremism and, pragmatically, give people other
things to do. The same effect occurs in rogue regimes, assuming we (or
someone) is able to "persuade" the heads of state in those regimes to allow
exterior connectivity.
The problem with this globalization is that in conservatives begin to
feel threatened, and often become extremists. I feel that it is this
globalization that lead to the extremism that pervades the Middle
East, creating Islamists. This globalization is the reason people in
the Middle East cry for Bush's head. The Middle East is the only
example I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure that
similar extreme reactions occur accross the globe.
Economics binds people together, even if they're of disparate cultures and
beliefs, and gives them a means of constructive, non-violent engagement with
each other. It leads to idea-sharing that would otherwise be difficult and
discouraged. It leads to distribution of power away from the central
government, as people compete constructively in the private sector rather
than just politically in the halls of power. Oh, and it also increases
aggregate prosperity in the region, and by extension, across the globe.
Trade has led to the prosperity of today, but unfortunately I feel
that the capitalism under which trade thrives leads to very unequal
distribution of power. Not the thread for that though :-)
The strategic vision that I'm suggesting is that we use our global power
projection as the initial phase in taking out stubborn regimes. That's a
small part of the picture, but still a necessary piece.
If only those in power wanted to use their power for good, rather than
expansion of their power, the world would be a much better place. I
don't know if humankind has it in itself to overcome its
self-defeating behavior and tries to help those in need.
Just my thoughts :-)
--
Razi
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
