Karl suggested the topic of "drones" at the end of the last meeting. It's a big topic and has to do with the projection of power and the control of a new war technology. In the headlines now is our "line in the sand" over the use of chemical weapons and whether Obama will "blink" on Syria. The use of drones is only a small part of our problems in Syria but the article below goes to the bigger question of whether or not we should have a dog in this fight at all...
Stratfor Article: Redlines and the Problems of Intervention in Syria
The point is that Syria is not Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. Those countries had a history of successful self-governance. Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan have either had tribal areas that feuded with each other to establish balance, or despots who ruthlessly suppressed dissent. Unless we are willing to play the latter role we are unlikely to have either a stable government we can work with, or the appreciation of the local population.
So, what is the role for the US in this? Last week we talked about hegemony and the role of Pax Americana that we are more and more unwilling to commit to.
That brings us back to drone strikes. This weapon is less expensive in treasure and lives that an operation like Iraq or Afghanistan. In addition it can be targeted to specific identified terror targets (and the unfortunates close by at the time).
• Is this the best we can do? Do you have any ideas?
• Can children in tribal cultures learn independent (critical) thinking and self-reliance from the tribal cultural norms, or are some cultures locked in for life?
• Is this perhaps why self-governance seems out of reach to some countries?
• Or is this just my own cultural chauvinism?
Finally, any other topics or activities you did this week? Perhaps updates on travels, gardens, good reads and getting out in the sun? We all enjoy a breather from the solving of world issues that continue to seem so hopeless.
See you Monday,
John
