|
Here's my thesis to bring the relationship between US/West and Islam back to neutral. I know its not perfect but I like to think its (somewhat) realistic.
The goal of these initiatives is to swing the US/West and Islam/Muslim relationship back to neutral in most Muslim countries and pro US/West in a few Muslim countries.
A. Establish sucessful advocate(s) in the region. Split up OPEC.
B. Think more Pax Americana
C. Create a sucessful propoganda machine
D. Direct a focused effort on tangible deeds/results in Muslim countries
E. Resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
F. Reduce dependence on oil
G. Take out the extremist elements with targeted precision
These intitiatives are meant to be pursued in a concurrent manner, with constant finetuning.
Item A.
From my readings, it seems that Kuwait and Qatar are the 2 most US/West leaning Middle East and Muslim countries in the region. Afghanistan may turn out to be a 3rd but probably too early to tell. Find out what it will take to align them to the US/West more closely.
Ex. Military protection, infusion of investment, (some) industry that they can depend on after their guaranteed reserves and world oil dependence is reduced in the future.
Item B.
Okay, I'm not saying invade countries and take land. However, I believe the US government is resigned to globalization and allowing globalization and the free (and sometimes unfair) market to take us where it goes.
This item pertains to the US government strategically leading globalization and having it follow us.
Ex. IT programming is dead (or will be in the next 20 years). The jobs have and will end up in India and China where they can do the job cheaper and better. The US government does not seem to care that our 'IT intellectual captial' has been traded for short-term profits.
Ex. Textile industry is dead. There is no way US companies using US labor can compete with other companies using labor from China.
I'm not saying I know the solution, all I'm saying is the US government makes little effort to veer globalization to the US long-term advantage.
Specific to Muslim countries in the Middle East, what other significant industries do they have other than for oil? Related to Item A, we need some globalization initiatives with Kuwait and Qatar (to start off with first).
Item C.
It has not been working so far. We need a steady infusion of pro (or at least neutral) US/Western and anti-radical Islam propoganda. I'm not sure how to do this but the answer is definitely not to hire a Washington/NY PR firm. Item C and Item D need to be closely aligned.
Item D.
Regardless of the Israeli/Palestinian issue, I can't help but believe that if the US was to trade a weapons program (ex. lets not build anymore Tridents) and allocate those budgeted funds to direct, tangible efforts in helping the most needy of Muslim population that significant goodwill will be created.
Ex. Spend $1B to reconstruct the hardest tsunami-hit Indonesian areas.
Ex. Spend another $1B to help the earthquake hit Pakistan villages etc.
Ex. Spend another $1B to setup significant employment opportunities in Pakistan where the madrases are (probably will have to hide the fact its coming from the US through a local company).
In these examples, the $3B is small change for the chance of a great upside in goodwill.
Item E.
Regardless of who was there first, who has a right to live there, whose promise land it is, whose fault it was for the missed the opportunities etc. I suspect all issues can be worked out other than for "right of return" and "Jerusalem".
My suggestion for "right of return" is to offer it, details and compensation can be worked out but the overriding concession by the Palestinians will be the inability to vote for the next 99 yers. Other than for voting, they will be protected by all the same laws that protects any other Israeli.
Ex. The US had a significant % of its population not voting for the majority of her existence.
The Israelis will have 99 years to increase their population and to ensure resident Palestinian goodwill. Can't work? The change of power in South Africa seems to have gone 'generally' well. If it can work there after years of apartheid, why not after 99 years of determine integration.
As for Jerusalem, bring it all under UN control, with non-aligned UN troops (ex. Chinese troops in Jerusalem would be a sight!). Alternatively, make the Holy sites embassies/consulates to ensure sovereignty (ala West Wing).
Item F.
The US private sector cannot do this themselves. It has to be mandated and forced onto us to reduce oil consumption. Not in 20 years as GB stated in the State of the Union (what a cop out), but in the next 5-10 years.
I believe we can reduce the oil consumption quickly, it depends on our will, the monetary cost and the price the US will have to pay in jobs/economy.
Our collective will is zilch. At $4/gallon, we'll be griping, blaming it on everyone else but we'll still continue to drive our SUVs. Government needs to impose its will.
I'm not sure how to calculate the monetary cost.
The price in jobs and economy would certainly hit the big automakers first as they will have to quickly retool and abandon currently productive factories. In addition, the profit margin and sales on the newer cars will be difficult to calculate. My best guess is in the short term there will be massive employment casulties in the automotive industry. However after a painful transition period, the opportunities for being the 'first to retool and be in a new market' will be enormous.
Ex. If I was head of the big 3, I would spin off (and own a majority) the hybird/alternate fuel division into its own separate company. Its charter would be to build fuel efficient cars and compete like any other car company
Ex. Like Kodak, its time to give up on film cameras.
For advocates for smaller government and intervention, my theory is there are certain times when government has to impose its will to get things done.
Ex. if not for the government, we would not be as integrated as we are now, not as bad as "separate but equal" but certainly less than the situation now.
The key to making this transition palatable is to provide a safety net for the displaced workers where they can be retrained and not have to worry about basic needs and healthcare. I think this will necessitate an increase in taxes and possibly a recession. However, short of a Depression, I think the costs are a fair price to pay.
Ex. I've been through 2 stock market crashes and 2 recessions. Nothing to laugh at but most people can rebound.
Item G.
Okay, lets call it an assasination. It doesn't need to be done by us, we can initiate, fund, encourage (whatever) but we should leave it as an option. I know its illegal and no, I don't think any of the Muslim government leaders qualify under this category right now. In my opinion, the clear example of where this is needed is in N. Korea.
As for terrorists, I like the idea of a Predator and a car full of terrorists on a desert road. I do not like the idea of a Predator and a civilian apartment building. There's been situations where we've probably killed many innocents (as well as terrorists) in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Can't we create a quick reaction force to encircle these elements and hold them trapped until a larger force comes? I know this won't work for an apartment building in a city but certainly can work for a smaller town/village.
Two other points to consider for this plan ...
I don't know how to weigh is the current state of our economy. I truly believe if our economy was robust (ala 90's) we would certainly be better able to absorb the increased cost/taxes/job loss than now (still fragile after emerging from our 'shallow' recession).
Political will. Even if GB signs on to this plan, I'm not sure our Congress could agree to follow. The optimal time to propose this plan would have been shortly after 9/11 when GB leadership was at its zenith.
|