|
Another twofer today.
• A well-funded program to help the former Soviet states keep track of their nukes—and their nuclear scientists Again, nothing that a reasoonable person can object to, save that it moves us a little closer to Empire -- in this case, something that I think could be dealt with.
• Serious pressure on the Saudi government to stop the funding of terror and of extremist madrassas in other countries, both by the government and by Saudi citizens This takes a little thinking about. How much pressure? Or, let me re-phrase that: given the actions (and lack of same) by U.S. administrations in the past couple of decades, how much pressure is needed to impress the Sa'udi goverment that, no fooling, we mean it this time? Given the severe lack of clue by military officers more interested in preserving their careers than their troops' lives (and also given the civilian officials' pressures on them -- the military didn't come up with this idea themselves), can we cause the Sa'udis (and their associated terrorists) to believe us? Nuking Mecca would probably do it, of course, but that's rather out of proportion. Twenty years of reversal of our previous craven policies would probably do it also, but I rather doubt that Gebert would be willing to wait so long (and, for that matter, neither would I). So, once again, readers, I appeal to you for ideas. What policies would impress upon the Sa'udis (in months rather than years) that we're serious (short of arbitrarily killing immense numbers of Arabs). Note that I am not ruling out "regime change" (a euphemism for overthrowing the House of Sa'ud, with or without the cooperation of the population of the Arabian peninsula), nor, for that matter, am I rejecting military action. I'm merely ruling out arbitrary military action; the sort of thing that a reasonable person (not a sock puppet for Chomsky) would condemn as "state terrorism". What is to be done? John "Akatsukami" Braue Thursday, June 06, 2002 |
|