[extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick

[Jef Allbright]

I normally tend to stay out of these discussions, but when someone as
rationally and objectively thinking as Robert makes what appear to me
as very narrow statements, I feel compelled to contribute a point of
view that seems under-represented.

The military action in Iraq is not primarily about WMD, or about the
attack on the World Trade Center, or even about "terrorism", which is
currently so over-used and broadly defined as to be more misleading
that meaningful.

It's about economics in the broadest sense.  It's about the
intentional disruption of a socio-economic structure, geographically
located mainly in the Middle East, that is a perceived threat to the
future well being of another socio-economic structure that happens to
be much more powerful in its capabilities and connections.  Since the
two structures are at odds, there will be competition for survival and
eventual growth of a particular set of values.

It's convenient to speak to the masses about Weapons of Mass
Destruction.  It's convenient to fuel the flames ignited by the attack
on the World Trade Center, and it's convenient to label many of the
opponents as "terrorists" when they would just as easily be labeled
"freedom fighters" if they were on the other side.

To reduce the argument to comparing numbers of individual lives lost
or saved within any subcontext misses the larger context within which
these actions are being decided.

>From my limited perspective, not having access to all the information
of the decision-makers, I think the recent offensive and subsequent
efforts at rebuilding Iraq were very poorly timed and executed,
leaving the US morally weaker in the eyes of potential allies at a
time when stronger cooperation is needed.  But in the bigger picture,
conflict will continue until we reach a new metastable level of
socio-economic organization.

BTW, I was happy today to see that Bill and Melinda Gates, and Bono
are being recognized for their humanitarian efforts.

- Jef








On 12/18/05, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Herb Martin wrote:
>
> > President Bush has led the freeing of over 60,000,000
> > human beings.  Not bad for six years.
>
>
>  While it is good that many people are now "free" who were not six years
> ago, I would offer this.
>
>  The Bush directly accountable death toll (to U.S. citizens) will exceed the
> death toll (to U.S. and foreign citizens) due to the 911 terrorists sometime
> in early 2007 [1].  In fact it is almost certain that the Bush responsible
> death toll will exceed the 911 death toll by July 4, 2007 (quite a present
> for the 4th of July... :-().
>
>  Now, one has to ask -- "Is the 'freedom' of 60,000,000 people worth another
> ~3000 U.S. lives?"
>
>  I am not saying that it is not.  One could look at the civil war or perhaps
> WWII where they were clearly justified on the basis of "freeing" people.
> However that was *not* the case with the war in Afghanistan or the war in
> Iraq.  They were largely sold on the basis of *potentially* protecting
> American lives in the future.
>
>  And IMO, if you look on balance at the amount of money spent on wars
> overseas over the last six years vs. the amount of money being spent on
> preparing for a "natural" disaster such as a breakout of the H5N1 virus
> there is a gross imbalance of priorities.
>
>  Take a step back and look at it from an extropic perspective -- *how* many
> of those 60,000,000 now "free" lives would have been lost had the U.S. not
> decided to exercise the military option?  Could 60,000,000 *DEATHS* have
> been prevented if the same amount of money and energy been dedicated to
> something like world hunger or disease prevention? ([2] is interesting...).
> As I calculate it, the war in Iraq has cost us approximately *8* full years
> of NIH funding.
>
>  Those kinds of questions explain why Bill & Melinda Gates are Time
> Magazine's "Persons of the Year" and *not* George W. Bush.
>
>  And for the record, I was *for* going into Afghanistan, and to a lesser
> extent going into Iraq -- but I have had some time (and more information)
> that have led me to rethinking my former perspectives.
>
>  Robert
>
>  1. This is based on calculations I did back in 2005.  But the rate of
> deaths has not changed significantly since then and I doubt it will change
> before 2007 given current trends.
>  2. http://costofwar.com/