From: mahmud-mehdi@yale.edu (Mehdi Mahmud)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: aid and bangladesh military
Date: 17 Nov 1992 13:00:02 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu


In article <ZAHIN.92Nov17104146@occs.cs.oberlin.edu> zahin@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Kazi Zahin S. Hasan) writes:
>In article <1eabc5INNnh3@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> mahmud-mehdi@yale.edu
>(Mehdi Mahmud) writes:
>> Modernity arrived about three yeasr ago when men from a rival
>> sub-clan armed with assault rifles, instead of the usual spears, swept
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> in and stole their camels, cattle and goats. Bereft of their wealth
>> and the means to recreate it, the once-proud family began a steady
>> slide into destitution.
>
>This paragraph deals with the modernization of traditional inter-clan
>warfare, which is based on periodic raids. It is not relevant in the
>context of international affairs; the Indians would not raid
>Bangladesh to steal a few cattle.

	Not only do you have the unique ability of stating the
obvious, but also of overlooking it. My article was meant to
reflect argument by *analogy*, NOT argument by *example*.
The point is: It is time we started building our arsenal (from 
"spears" to "assault rifles") or we may suddenly find ourselves 
seriously outclassed in the future. 

	Besides, perhaps the Indians do not deserve as much 
humanity that you grant them. (NOTE: I am speaking in hypothetical
terms, and this is not meant to start a nationalistic flame war
on the newsboard.)  Look how much the Indian Army stole after
the 1971 war. Indeed, Lt. General Aurora was later quoted as 
saying: "We [The Indian Army] should never have left Bangladesh..."

>>  The argument has been proferred 
>>  that our neighbors have nothing to gain from an invasion... true
>>  for the present; but what happens when we *do* get around to 
>>  building a stronger economy... will that be as true then? 
>
>If it is, we can build up our army then. 

	Ahem, one has to use logic, not ad hoc arguments...:)
I suppose you will now argue that an army is something that takes
a few hours to build, and the US will always be enthusiastic about
dishing out a few million dollars whenever we want to build one up... 
in a few hours, of course.

	One has to build up an army to *prevent* losing one's
property and pride, not to *recapture* what was lost. 

>But at this time, our most
>pressing need is to deal with the massive problems of poverty,
>illiteracy, landlessness, etc. None of these will be solved by
>military buildup, whether it is financed by aid dollars or through our
>own. On the contrary, our undisciplined army, which does not hold
>itself accountable to the civilian government, has historically
>contributed much to the political instability which has prevented
>Bangladesh's serious problems from being dealt with in the political
>arena.

	That has its roots in our social policy (and history),
not in our economic or political policy. Traditionally, the army
has been branded as a place for those who couldn't attain any
higher goals; hence, the army's recruitment standards have had
to be quite low. What we need is to get some trained economists
in the armed forces in order to educate and inform their peers of 
the disastrous effects of military rule. Any volunteers? :)

>>  Too bad economic theory never paid any attention to history. 
>
>Not true at all. Economic theory has been developed in order to
>understand _economic_ history. Of course it can be applied sloppily,
>in which case it will produce lousy results. 

	QED

>But political analysis
>can be done equally sloppily, as you have shown with your reference
>from the NY times.

	Evidently, the fact that you managed to completely
overlook the rather simple and obvious point, re above, perhaps
speaks more of *your* analytic capabilities than mine.

>Since we are trading Shaw quotes, here is another one for you.
>
	<quote deleted>

	I am only too happy to oblige. Bernard Shaw it is.

"God gave the hand, let not Man withhold the sword. All have 
the right to fight: none have the right to judge. To Man the weapon:
to Heaven the victory. Peace shall not prevail save with a sword
in her hand. Nothing is ever done in this world until men are 
prepared to kill each other if it is not done."

	With best wishes.
	Asif
-- 
~mahmud@cs.yale.edu		Strategic thinking is the art of outdoing
~Mehdi Mahmud			an adversary always remembering that he is
~P.O. Box 688 Yale Station	trying to do the same to you.
~New Haven, CT 06520.		   - Dixit & Nalebuff (Strategic Thinking)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh