Questions and Answers
If we were on the right track, then how do you
explain the success of the demise of the WTC and damage to Wash. and many
thousands dead and many more families suffering?
I was referring to our bombing of
Afghanistan, not the terrorist attacks against us. No, I do not think we were on “the right track” in terms of our
political image in the world. If we
were seen as moral, or “good” as George Bush puts it, then I don’t think there
would be much impetus to attack us. How
many terrorist attacks take place in Sweden, for example? Our version of Realpolitick is based on the
power of the dollar. Mao made the famous statement that “Power comes out of the
barrel of a gun.” We could amend that
to “Morality comes out of the ability to pay the bills.” This is, of course, an amoral position,
since inanimate objects, be they bullets or dollar bills, have no inherent
value. That exists only as a matter of
perspective in how it is used.
How would more sympathy justify these recent actions (not looking at the long range picture)? What message would not taking action, as we did give, the terrorists?
It isn’t clear what you are asking in the first part. Did I say take NO action? I believe I said hunting down responsible terrorists and cutting off resources to their organizations was appropriate, and utilizing international sympathy would be part of denying them resources. Governments that support our actions can provide resources, information etc. to us. Those that oppose our actions might do the same for our enemies.
Seems the political angle was explored and continues to be explored. In addition, to accomplish covert goals we still would be in same boat... tracking and finding the culprits and the difficulty that entails...
No one said it would be quick or easy, not even George Bush. Politics is sometimes described as “What have you done for me lately”, but people can have long memories, especially on the larger social or cultural level. It seems right now we are building sympathy and recruits, if not for al Qaida then for jihad, among many Moslems. I believe this was the goal of Bin Laden, to provoke a knee-jerk reaction. He waved a red flag in front of the bull, and now that bull is perceived to be stampeding through the Moslem world.
People keep coming to America despite this
oppression....why is that?
Have you ever been out of the country, to places in Asia or the Middle East? Many there believe their poverty is a direct result of the West. Let's see ... the West colonized them, then when we left, we supported oppressive oligarchies that got wealthy allowing Western corporations to rape the environment and displace people, most of whom remain desperately poor. Wouldn't you want to get away to some place to which all those benefits were flowing, and away from the murderous governments that enforced this reality?
Propaganda isn't the issue, perhaps!
Then why is our government so concerned with it? There is an old saying: “The pen is mightier than the sword.” (One could also say that words are cheaper than cruise missiles.) We are sending people (none of whom, it seems, are Moslem) to speak on Al Jazeera, the most respected and widely listened to Moslem radio station in the Mideast. We have Tony Blair doing political rounds internationally, trying to keep up morale at the governmental level. If we lose the propaganda war, we lose political support. If that happens, then our agenda isn't supported, and there is less chance of finding terrorists or cutting off their livelihood. The propaganda on the streets of the Middle East is that Israelis bombed the WTC to get the U.S. to kill Arabs. Governments are sensitive to this mood, for no matter how intransigent they are, they still realize that governance is subject to the power of the masses. Our bombing in Afghanistan has made it more difficult for Middle Eastern governments to show support for us, because it contradicts the general mood of the populace who sees us as aggressors against their culture. We're bombing the !#$% out of a pile of rocks in the desert, and we still haven't found Bin Laden, have we? And if we kill him this way, he becomes even larger than life.
We had the opportunity to hold the moral upper hand. Now we are
bombing one of the poorest and most inflicted people on earth, perhaps this should have been a consideration
on the part of the terrorists...
Why? Why should they care? Every dead Moslem is a martyr to
be exploited for their cause, because that death is perpetrated, on THEIR soil,
by rich, foreign, non-Moslem aggressors. Besides, most of the al Qaida
are Mideastern Arabs, not native Afghani. Unlike the Taliban, they aren't
even from there! Many exiled Afghanis consider their country held
hostage. So, we are killing hostages without necessarily getting their
captors ....
From the NY Times, 11/2/01:
“Al Qaeda intercepts were interpreted as extraordinarily clear signals of potential danger in part because
of the urgent and serious tone of the conversations. Officials said the terrorist operatives were overheard
talking about an operation that would be even bigger than the Sept. 11 hijackings. Officials said they
intercepted several of these conversations between Al Qaeda members in several countries.”
Doesn’t this seem to indicate the futility of bombing the mountains of Afghanistan? Al Qaida isn’t a locale, it’s an international corporation, just like an American one. Terror Inc., straight out of James Bond. We can destroy an office building, but just like those businesses that continue to survive which had offices in the WTC, so too will this entity, in some form or other. I propose that a better model than the military one would be a business model. Find a better mousetrap and sell it to its customers. In other words, undermine their product with something more appealing. Is bombing Afghanistan that solution? No. Humanitarian aid is a big step in the right direction. So is showing some understanding of their culture. We didn’t do well with the Chinese either until we grasped that concept.
It merely continues to be uphill, in an upheated fashion! How did America become a free nation in the first place? Not by world sympathies....not by slapping hands, not by allowing the destruction of innocent lives....
So, do we put out fires by adding gasoline, or smother it with a blanket? I recommend reading "Book of Five Rings" by Miyamoto Musashi or "Art of War" by Sun Tzu. Sometimes the best strategy isn't fighting fire with fire. I'm not saying ours is necessarily the worst response we could have chosen, but if we fail to achieve our objective of eliminating "evil", then has bombing Afghanistan been effective, in either the limited strategic sense or the larger political picture? If the government of Pakistan falls to a more radical Islamic political system, does this aid our cause? In the 1950's and 60's we had a "Domino Theory" about the spread of communism, that each country that fell to it would increase the momentum and lead to the fall of its neighbors. Are we instigating a similar dynamic right now by giving Islamic fundamentalists the fuel they need to raise public sentiment throughout that part of the globe? Doesn't our response elevate their political profile from that of fringe radicals to a more credible platform from which to reach the mainstream with a call for jihad? In this regard I suspect many Mideastern governments resent our bombing, because we undermine their own fragile legitimacy.
Just some
thoughts...I didn't read the rest of the articles on your website...too
daunting a task and my printer isn't cooperative. I see both sides but
keep coming back to the concept of the "bully"...or the bad apple in
a family/community. What's the best consequence to prevent further
damage/harm to the innocents in immediate danger?
It’s a lot to read. It’s too much to digest in one sitting, and each web page takes several to print out.
We need to stop terrorist attacks, but if we look at the example of Israel, has their hard-line approach increased their security or increased radicalism? I was there in 1966, 1968 and 1984. I've seen the changes, and I follow the news. They have always been in danger, but they seem less secure now than ever before. Long term security comes not from force but from strategy, and that means a political solution that satisfies all parties to the issue, at least to the extent that they see equity. I concede that it is difficult to satisfy those who want nothing less than total victory, but that attitude has perpetuated violence in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka etc.
How do we preserve what we created?
Obviously by curtailing civil liberties, cutting corporate taxes and
giving billions of dollars to them as welfare. That's what we are doing
... (Ok, that was a bit cynical …)
"Protective privilege ends where
public peril begins...."
A nice pat sound bite. How's this one I’ve
heard? "The only attacks ever anticipated by the FBI were against
Bonnie and Clyde, at Ruby Ridge, and at Waco." Maybe
that’s a bit too cynical, but the nature of law enforcement is reactive, not
proactive. Let them do what they do best, track and find
perpetrators. I guarantee there are always more targets than ways to
protect them. Security is a myth. Just look at how
"successful" we've been eliminating hackers online. Not very. Remember the Newtonian equation “Every
action has an equal and opposite reaction.”
Well, the unbridled use of power begets an armed response. The domestic incidents mentioned above
haven’t eliminated domestic hate groups.
If anything, they have been recruiting tools There are more participants hate groups in the country now than
there were 10 years ago.
Wage
war with surprise moves
Become
master of the universe without striving
Lao
Tzu – Tao Te Ching (chpt. 57)