From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 22:31:31 MST
Charles writes
> You are right, in the sense that the number of possible reactions is
> large. If I only had a single expectation, and pinned everything on
> that, then I would agree with your assessment. But I have a range of
> expectations that I consider more or less probable. And one of the
> ones that I consider likely is that some measurable fraction of the
> population will be motivated by revenge.
I see two dynamics here. One: some Iraqis (and Arabs, I guess)
who are not presently violent and who are not terrorists will
become so as a result of the present war.
Two: Some citizens of Arab countries, seeing the downfall of
Saddam Hussein and linking that outcome to his ruthlessness,
viciousness, and depravity (or linking it to the power of the
West) will become less likely to engage in acts of violence or
terrorism.
Perhaps someone has enough background or knowledge of the
countries and people in question to dare speculate?
> As to my being too "unemotional", you are probably right.
Let's see. You had written
> > > In a more limited sense, self-defense is normally recognized
> > > as legitimate. But as to what should be an expected reaction...
> > > here we get back to theft being a hanging offense.
and I wrote
> > The trouble one has with your "expected reaction" is that
> > your approach seems to be too analytical and devoid of
> > emotion in the current case at hand, and also that it is
> > obviously going to differ from person to person and from
> > group to group.
That's the context. I needed that :-)
> But that's my reaction. I have the typical nerd detachment
> from active interest in politics, though I realize that this
> is not the best reaction. So I do my best.
I understand. Still, the current situation has engaged
you somewhat. Perhaps it's the analytical problems of
predicting threats and predicting future behavior of the
combatants and nations?
> I consider it likely that very few Iraqi support Saddam.
> This may just make them more angry when they are attacked
> in the cause of someone they would rather not defend.
Well, could be. One benefit of the Iraqis losing this
conflict would be that our curiosity might very well
be assuaged. I would hope, if the Americans win, that
the Iraqis won't be too inhibited to speak the truth,
whatever it is, about their current situation.
> And despite the public announcements, it's a bit
> difficult to surrender to an artillery shell that's
> fired from beyond your visual horizon. So people
> who might have been our supporters are turned into
> our bitter enemies... (or, I admit, perhaps not).
Yes, very hard to call. A large number of Iraqis living
in the U.S. at present (admittedly, a biased sample since
many came because they couldn't get along with the regime
over there) are impatient with the tactics of the Coalition.
They're very much afraid that the "human shields" type
tactics will prolong the war, and that the Coalition
will foolishly allow such tactics to work.
I infer that they'd just go in guns blazing, the way
that all wars were fought until 1950, with little regard
for the unfortunate civilians who got in the way.
This bespeaks two phenomena: one, that the Arab world
(indeed most of the non-Western world) has by our standards
rather little regard for life (promoting other values,
such as honor, piety, etc. above life), and two, that
just in the last decades the West has for interesting
reasons evolved to the point that they actually put into
jeopardy their chances of winning decisively, and do so
at no little cost.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 22:31:50 MST