SCW
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- SLC (yuck) UT
This is not mine, it's actually from the artist Scott Adams who draws the Dilbert comic. Great solution IMO, and I'm more pro-Israel than anyone else in that region (and no apologies for that either, Ramsey 
)
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
Treat this as a thought experiment, in the sense that trying to figure out why it won’t work might change the way you look at the problem, and sometimes that’s a step in the right direction.
If pride is really the underlying emotional barrier to peace in the Middle East, we’ll probably need a solution like the card game from the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. There’s a scene where the Sundance Kid is accused of cheating and it looks as if shooting might start because his honor has been offended. When the accuser discovers he’s dealing with the legendary quick-draw Sundance Kid, he starts looking for a way out. Sundance explains that the only way he can leave the table without gunfire, (and his pride intact, we gather from the context), is if the accuser asks him to stay. Eventually the accuser realizes that doing so is the smartest move and he invites Sundance to stay. Sundance then politely excuses himself, honor intact, and no one gets killed.
When pride is at stake, often the solution looks crazy-ass backwards. Sometimes you have to ask people to stay if want them to leave. Keep that in mind as you read my peace plan thought experiment. It’s intentionally crazy-ass backwards. But it might be the best way for Sundance to keep his pride and not shoot anyone.
Second, don’t judge the plan exclusively by its risks and costs, of which there are plenty. The only relevant question is how those risks and costs compare to the current strategy of “fightin’ ‘em over there,” searching every thousandth cargo container, and wishful thinking.
Before you judge the current anti-terrorist strategy, you might want to read David Suskind’s book, “The One Percent Solution.” I will summarize it by saying that our real victories on the war on terror remain state secrets whereas some of the “victories” you have heard about in the news are pure baloney. My point is that we citizens really have no idea how we’re doing in the war on terror. My personal guess is “not good enough.”
First I’ll describe my crazy-ass backward plan, then I’ll tell you why it might work.
Crazy-Ass Backward Plan:
1. The United States publicly acknowledges the obvious – that Iran is a highly capable adversary and they’ve been yanking our nuts for decades. They’re doing it now with Iraq, and with Hezbollah, and by stalling the U.N. while they develop nukes. We apologize for supporting the Shah those many years ago and show Iran some respect for their opinions even though we respectfully disagree. Essentially, we give them their due.
2. We say to Iran, in effect, “You have game” and we want you on our side. We offer to reopen our embassies and establish full economic and diplomatic ties. No strings attached (at least publicly).
3. We offer military security to Iran. We go beyond simply saying we won’t attack Iran. We say we’ll help them militarily if anyone else does. We’re your new pal.
4. We withdraw our economic support of Israel. As many on this blog have noted, Israel mostly uses our foreign aid money to buy U.S. goods, so it would have some impact on U.S. companies. Israel would probably make up some of the difference with direct contributions from supporters overseas. And since Israel plans to reduce its reliance on U.S. aid anyway, this is more symbolic than important in the long run.
5. We invite Iran to help in Iraq as we withdraw our forces, knowing in advance that it would result in an Iran-dominated Iraq.
6. The U.S. starts abstaining from U.N. votes that involve Israel. This is also more symbolic than real, since Israel would ignore any U.N. vote that didn’t suit them.
7. Now here’s the crazy-ass backwards part: We don’t ask (publicly) for anything in return. We don’t ask for inspections of their nuclear facilities, we don’t ask them to stop interfering in Iraq, we don’t ask them to stop arming Hezbollah, and we don’t ask them to stop talking about destroying Israel. Behind the scenes, we make it clear that we expect those things in time. Remember: It’s a pride issue.
What would happen?
One possibility is that Iran would continue doing all of the things we dislike while taking all of the things we give them: pride, military security, economic trade. They might even do MORE things we dislike under the theory that we’re weak.
Here’s what I think might happen:
1. Behind closed doors, Iran would agree to inspections of its nuclear facilities, but on its own schedule, so it looked like it was Iran’s decision and not the result of pressure. That way they keep their pride. And with our military guarantees, they don’t need nukes to feel safe.
2. Iran’s “victory” over the great Satan United States would take the pressure off of wiping Israel off the map. They’d probably continue the rhetoric, but there’s not much chance they would attack a nuclear power.
3. Having gained so much in terms of security, economics and respect, Iran will grow into the role of responsible world power and start being constructive in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere. They’d have too much to lose by screwing things up.
4. An Iranian dominated Iraq would be less of a problem than an Al Qaeda dominated Iraq, or a Sunni dominated Iraq. It’s not as if Iraq has a bunch of treasure and the dominator gets to keep it. We should feel sorry for whoever ends up dominating that sink hole.
5. In time, the growth of the Internet would infect Iran’s youth with ideas of democracy and freedom. We can sell them technology and wait a generation or two. They’ll turn into France.
6. Israel would survive just fine without explicit U.S. help.
The Crazy-Ass Backwards plan doesn’t work if you hold the common and somewhat racist U.S. view, that the people “over there” only understand brute force. In that case, any flexibility on the part of the U.S. looks like weakness and an invitation to be kicked some more.
But from what I gather about pride, it’s a substitute for power in the Middle East. If you give people pride, they don’t feel so much need to kill you. Is that true? Beats me. I have no pride myself so I confess to not understanding it. But I know that brute force isn’t working, at least at the puny level we are willing to apply it.
As many of you will gleefully point out, I’m no expert on the Middle East. This thought experiment is only intended to make you think different about a so-far unsolvable problem. Sometimes that’s useful.
)http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
Treat this as a thought experiment, in the sense that trying to figure out why it won’t work might change the way you look at the problem, and sometimes that’s a step in the right direction.
If pride is really the underlying emotional barrier to peace in the Middle East, we’ll probably need a solution like the card game from the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. There’s a scene where the Sundance Kid is accused of cheating and it looks as if shooting might start because his honor has been offended. When the accuser discovers he’s dealing with the legendary quick-draw Sundance Kid, he starts looking for a way out. Sundance explains that the only way he can leave the table without gunfire, (and his pride intact, we gather from the context), is if the accuser asks him to stay. Eventually the accuser realizes that doing so is the smartest move and he invites Sundance to stay. Sundance then politely excuses himself, honor intact, and no one gets killed.
When pride is at stake, often the solution looks crazy-ass backwards. Sometimes you have to ask people to stay if want them to leave. Keep that in mind as you read my peace plan thought experiment. It’s intentionally crazy-ass backwards. But it might be the best way for Sundance to keep his pride and not shoot anyone.
Second, don’t judge the plan exclusively by its risks and costs, of which there are plenty. The only relevant question is how those risks and costs compare to the current strategy of “fightin’ ‘em over there,” searching every thousandth cargo container, and wishful thinking.
Before you judge the current anti-terrorist strategy, you might want to read David Suskind’s book, “The One Percent Solution.” I will summarize it by saying that our real victories on the war on terror remain state secrets whereas some of the “victories” you have heard about in the news are pure baloney. My point is that we citizens really have no idea how we’re doing in the war on terror. My personal guess is “not good enough.”
First I’ll describe my crazy-ass backward plan, then I’ll tell you why it might work.
Crazy-Ass Backward Plan:
1. The United States publicly acknowledges the obvious – that Iran is a highly capable adversary and they’ve been yanking our nuts for decades. They’re doing it now with Iraq, and with Hezbollah, and by stalling the U.N. while they develop nukes. We apologize for supporting the Shah those many years ago and show Iran some respect for their opinions even though we respectfully disagree. Essentially, we give them their due.
2. We say to Iran, in effect, “You have game” and we want you on our side. We offer to reopen our embassies and establish full economic and diplomatic ties. No strings attached (at least publicly).
3. We offer military security to Iran. We go beyond simply saying we won’t attack Iran. We say we’ll help them militarily if anyone else does. We’re your new pal.
4. We withdraw our economic support of Israel. As many on this blog have noted, Israel mostly uses our foreign aid money to buy U.S. goods, so it would have some impact on U.S. companies. Israel would probably make up some of the difference with direct contributions from supporters overseas. And since Israel plans to reduce its reliance on U.S. aid anyway, this is more symbolic than important in the long run.
5. We invite Iran to help in Iraq as we withdraw our forces, knowing in advance that it would result in an Iran-dominated Iraq.
6. The U.S. starts abstaining from U.N. votes that involve Israel. This is also more symbolic than real, since Israel would ignore any U.N. vote that didn’t suit them.
7. Now here’s the crazy-ass backwards part: We don’t ask (publicly) for anything in return. We don’t ask for inspections of their nuclear facilities, we don’t ask them to stop interfering in Iraq, we don’t ask them to stop arming Hezbollah, and we don’t ask them to stop talking about destroying Israel. Behind the scenes, we make it clear that we expect those things in time. Remember: It’s a pride issue.
What would happen?
One possibility is that Iran would continue doing all of the things we dislike while taking all of the things we give them: pride, military security, economic trade. They might even do MORE things we dislike under the theory that we’re weak.
Here’s what I think might happen:
1. Behind closed doors, Iran would agree to inspections of its nuclear facilities, but on its own schedule, so it looked like it was Iran’s decision and not the result of pressure. That way they keep their pride. And with our military guarantees, they don’t need nukes to feel safe.
2. Iran’s “victory” over the great Satan United States would take the pressure off of wiping Israel off the map. They’d probably continue the rhetoric, but there’s not much chance they would attack a nuclear power.
3. Having gained so much in terms of security, economics and respect, Iran will grow into the role of responsible world power and start being constructive in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere. They’d have too much to lose by screwing things up.
4. An Iranian dominated Iraq would be less of a problem than an Al Qaeda dominated Iraq, or a Sunni dominated Iraq. It’s not as if Iraq has a bunch of treasure and the dominator gets to keep it. We should feel sorry for whoever ends up dominating that sink hole.
5. In time, the growth of the Internet would infect Iran’s youth with ideas of democracy and freedom. We can sell them technology and wait a generation or two. They’ll turn into France.
6. Israel would survive just fine without explicit U.S. help.
The Crazy-Ass Backwards plan doesn’t work if you hold the common and somewhat racist U.S. view, that the people “over there” only understand brute force. In that case, any flexibility on the part of the U.S. looks like weakness and an invitation to be kicked some more.
But from what I gather about pride, it’s a substitute for power in the Middle East. If you give people pride, they don’t feel so much need to kill you. Is that true? Beats me. I have no pride myself so I confess to not understanding it. But I know that brute force isn’t working, at least at the puny level we are willing to apply it.
As many of you will gleefully point out, I’m no expert on the Middle East. This thought experiment is only intended to make you think different about a so-far unsolvable problem. Sometimes that’s useful.
