Dead Serious

I was talking to some friends today who were poking great fun at the disconnect between the Feds and New York officials over the possible terrorist threat to the Big Apple’s subways.

I told them I failed to see any humor in the situation. They failed to see my point: Just because George W. Bush highjacked the Islamo-fascist threat to justify the war in Iraq, doesn’t mean that threat isn’t real. And mortal.

Al Qaeda and similar armed religio-fascist groups are not just a bogeyman invented by neo-cons to stampede the public (as hard as they might try).

Nor are they simple inventions of the United States or its policies – an alarmingly common view among much of the American Left. In her most recent interview, Cindy Sheehan endorses this view that September 11^th was of our own making:

"I think that US foreign policy is totally responsible for 9/11, as well as the recent bombings in London. Our policies of killing innocent Iraqis; Afghanis; supporting the occupation of Palestine; our permanent bases in Saudi Arabia; our presence in Lebanon; our support of the Shah; supporting Saddam and giving him the WMDs used on his own people. I think this sort of behavior drives hatred toward the US. This is just all my opinion, of course. I am not a politician or a military strategist. I am just a citizen voicing my opinions..."

We’ll give a Sheehan a moral pass precisely based on that disclaimer of her not really knowing what she’s talking about. Because she doesn’t. Belief in an extremist religious world view is what produced 9/11. And the London bombings were the work of similar, cold-blooded fanatics -- and not the handiwork of Bush and Blair (however much you might rightfully dislike them).

This mistaken – and extremely dangerous—notion was ably taken apart recently by leftist writer and journalist Sasha Abramsky in an essay on Opendemocracy.net An excerpt:

"British journalists Robert Fisk, John Pilger, and Tariq Ali, along with British MP George Galloway, and, on the other side of the Atlantic, commentators such as Naomi Klein have all essentially blamed Britain and the United States for bringing the attacks upon themselves. While being careful to denounce the bombers and their agenda, these advocates uttered variations on the same theme: get out of Iraq, bring home the troops from all points east, curtail support for Israel, develop a more sensible, non-oil-based energy policy, and our troubles would dissipate in the wind…

…Pilger, Fisk, Ali, Galloway, and Klein grasp the undeniable fact that shortsighted western policies and alliances of convenience over the past century have contributed to today’s mass alienation of young Muslims, to a climate in which millennial groups such as al-Qaida flourish…

…But theirs is also a truncated analysis. They assume that groups like al-Qaida are almost entirely reactive, responding to western policies and actions, rather than being pro-active creatures with a virulent homegrown agenda, one not just of defence but of conquest, destruction of rivals, and, ultimately and at its most megalomaniacal, absolute subjugation.

It misses the central point: that, unlike traditional “third-world” liberation movements looking for a bit of peace and quiet in which to nurture embryonic states, al-Qaida is classically imperialist, looking to subvert established social orders and to replace the cultural and institutional infrastructure of its enemies with a (divinely inspired) hierarchical autocracy of its own, looking to craft the next chapter of human history in its own image.

Simply blaming the never quite defined, yet implicitly all-powerful “west” for the ills of the world doesn’t explain why al-Qaida slaughtered thousands of Americans eighteen months before Saddam was overthrown. Nor does it explain the psychopathic joy this death cult takes in mass killings and in ritualistic, snuff-movie-style beheadings."

Please read Sasha’s entire essay before commenting.

He’s absolutely spot-on arguing that precisely because Bin-Ladenism is committed to combatting the very notion of an open, liberal society, too much of the activist left’s post-911 response has been “woefully, catasrophically inadequate.”

When ordinary Americans worry that their cities, ports or subways might be bombed by suicidal fanatics, it’s laughable and insulting to tell them that if they would just help put an end to U.S. imperialism the whole problem would go away.

Certainly, many aspects of U.S. foreign policy help foment widespread resentment in the Middle East and Muslim world. But the totalitarian and ultimately nihilist ideology of Al Qaeda possesses its own agency and is likely to act no matter what position this or that American White House takes.

When liberals and leftists just shrug their shoulders, when they write off all terrorist threats as mere fear-mongering (or worse as the chickens coming home to roost) they not only abdicate all moral responsibility, they also effectively take a progressive policy alternative off the table. Do that, and you kick the door wide open and unobstructed for the current disastrous policies of the Bush administration. I may think the Bush and his Department of Homeland Security are fools. But I take Al Qaeda and its allies dead seriously.

Comments

[Josh Legere]

Randy - What point are you making?

Well, a lot of "fringe" people may not speak for you. Fair enough. But they do get a lot of publicity and to the outsider; they DO speak for the Left. THAT is the problem.

George Galloway makes it easy for Right wing talk radio hosts. Anyone that might be questioning the Bushies only needs to look at the opposition. At the moment you see a Democratic Party that is totally impotent. You also see George Galloway touring around the country with Jane Fonda. These people speak for you, even if you do not realize it.

In you snotty Manhattan tone, "are you comprehending this?" Criticizing the continual failures of the Democrats and Leftists is due and necessary.

I don't care what you have said or what your opinions might be. Great. You don't approve of the nuts and you brave the subways of NY everyday.

What I do care about is the "with us or against us attitude" by people like yourself who use Bush style rhetoric to try to steer the conversation away from the sorry state of the left and "keep on message." The message of course is more of the same (or obvious); Bush is bad, etc... Certainly true, but according the mainstream polls, not a revelation to even the average person.

I simply find it offensive that such strident Bush opponents seem to mirror his mentality when the heat gets turned inward. I have seen it time and time again by mainstream democrats on leftward.

[Julia Stein]

To answer your questions Marc

1. No, the government hasn't made up all those threats. However, the government has the problem of crying wolf too many times.

2. Yes, there is a threat from bin Laden et al. I think it's only in a few large cities like NY, Washington D.C. and maybe LA and S.F. I think there is no threat to rural areas or small city. No, bin Laden isn't interested in Tulsa or Redding, Ca.

3. What legislative, military remedies
a.Reduce U.S. dependency on oil
1. pass through the state of CA legislature the solar bill to put solar power of rooftops
2.Congress passing a law increasing
mandating cars getting better mileage
3. That's only the beginning

b. Change foreign policy throughout the Middle East to support groups within civil society--human rights groups, women's groups, trade union groups, peasant cooperatives--which Republicans ignore
1. Bremer kept Hussein's law making
it illegal to form trade unions in
Iraq--get rid of that law.
2. Change all laws that give U.S.
corporations stranglehold on Iraqi
economy
3. Fire U.S. contractors in Iraq;
put out bids for new contractors
who will work with Iraqi engineers
to fix sewage systems etc.

c. Quit torturing p.o.w.s and put those responsible for torturing on trial starting with officers/generals.

d.Start reducing aid to Israel for
building illegal settlements on the West Bank--I know it will be difficult. Give the aid to the Palestinians instead.

e. Cut the pork out of Homeland Security. No, all those rural areas
don't need millions of millions of dollars.

f. Go after bin Laden groups with global police actions and try those arrested in civil courts like the Spanish did.

h. Have a phased withdrawl from Iraq
trying not to leave with a bloddy
civil war.

Don't expect the problems in the Middle East will be solved overnight.

[Virgil Johnson]

Jim, if I hear one more time about some noble faction defending itself against violence I am going to puke (I have a puke bag near my computer). I don't know where you have been but counter-insurgency doctrine (employed over the last 50 years) IS a war on the people (whomever).

You do not destroy a country's infrastructure without killing people in both the intial process and the aftermath. You do not avoid killing people by going door to door, pulling out the males and disappearing them. You do not avoid killing innocent people by locking everyone and their grandmother up indiscriminately, and than torturing them - including the rape of children! For eveyone else, do you think this was the first time this has been done? Are you all mentally challenged? This is the first time it has gotten press in this manner, and it has been officially codified in a public forum.

"De opresso libre," the insignia worn aside, is complete and utter bullshit! Perhaps there is an element of truth of defending yourself if you are on your own terra firma drinking a latte and someone walks in with a bomb attached to them - but not when you are a deadly occupation force that has just killing over 100,000 people - oh, excuse me "accidentally," we accidentally dropped bombs in civilian areas! We made a "mistake" dropping cluster bombs in civilian city centers, we did not mean to bomb schools, drinking purification plants, agricultural crops - "opps, pardon me, I am sorry your child picked one up and was maimed for life."

Counter-insurgency IS a war against the people more directly, in fact ALL war is against a people/civilians to make them surrender through force, whether there are men dressed in official uniforms or not. There is NO NOBLE war presently taking place, and there is no design of democracy being delivered - period, did I make that clear enough?

You cannot get anything done diplomatically when you call certain groups that represent people "terrorists," and than say we do not negotiate with terrorists or "terrorist states." Terrorism is the catch all word used for "we will do what we want, when we want, and will take what we want, and there is nothing you can do about it." Granted, there are certain nasty factions which have to be dealt with violently, but never a standing army deployed to the destruction of an entire country - in the amorphous name of terrorism.

If that is the case you have a few more hundred nations to attack, endless war, should be good for the military industrial complex, eh? That is a lot of puppet governments run by chosen elite aristocracies. That is the sack of a lot of other countries resources. It will never end - that is this administrations design, join in their insanity or step aside (either you are with us or you are against us). I say get these criminals out as fast as you can!

[Nell]

Marc:
Reg's comment at 5:36, just before your questions, answers them for me. Not succinct enough for you, I guess. Okay:

1)Answered twice above, but yes, there's a threat to U.S. civilians (and civilians everywhere who are near any targets that Islamic terrorists identify as 'western').

2)Based on 1), obviously, the scope is global. This doesn't mean the risk is equally, evenly high anywhere in the world.

3)The basic approach is twofold: minimize the attraction of the armed Islamic fundamentalist groups for the publics in which they move, and maximize U.S. military, intelligence, and public ability to understand and prepare for who and what we're dealing with.

- Intensive program to increase Arabic language skills (and understanding of Islam) in military, intelligence, and State departments.
- Renounce permanent bases in Iraq. Withdraw U.S. military forces completely from Iraq as soon as possible.
- Pressure Israel (via diplomacy and withholding of funds) to evacuate settlements on the West Bank and move to final status negotiations with the Palestinian government.
- Restore our political and moral capital as a force for nuclear nonproliferation by reversing the Bush first-strike posture, stopping development of bunker-buster nukes, and rolling back our nuclear arsenal. Fund and expand the buy-up programs now dependent on private funds.
- Bring sanity to the prioritizing of threats within the U.S., and involve the public in serious, common sense disaster preparation planning (agree with Ahmed that the link in Abramsky's article is a good, interesting start).
- Massive alternative energy and energy conservation programs.
- Engage Arab and Islamic publics with genuine public diplomacy (e.g., put U.S. spokespeople onto Al Jazeera for real discussions instead of starting up parallel propaganda networks).
- Level with U.S. public about the history of the middle east and Central Asia. Your characterization of the Afghan war is an example of what NOT to do (dealt with in my next comment for succinctness, along with a response on the subject of criticism of the left).

So much of what needs to be done is UN-doing damage that the Bush administration has done by going in the wrong direction, not just in Iraq. Some of the damage is irreversible. A top-of-my-head list in addition to those implicit in my answers above: the INS roundups and registration that have contributed to foreign student enrollment dropping by two-thirds, the embrace of Putin as he returns Russia to dictatorship, the creation of more military bases in Central Asia, the vast partisan-consultant boondoggle that is the Dept. of "Homeland Security", shredding of relationships with European intelligence and diplomatic staff, the bamboozling of the American public by false fusing of all terror-using groups into one giant threat: first conflating Saddam's Iraq with Al Qaeda, then falsely fusing the homegrown Iraq resistance with Al Q, now overstating the role the foreign jihadists in Iraq play in the overall resistance.

Marc, I think it's only fair for you to answer question 3 as well. Succinctly or not: it's your blog.

[Randy Paul]

"But they do get a lot of publicity and to the outsider; they DO speak for the Left. THAT is the problem."

Only for the intellectually lazy. I have little doubt that if George Galloway and Robert Fisk saved Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Neal Boortz from drowning, they would still find some way to blame it on the left. Of the five people mentioned in Abramsky's article only one has the right to vote in the USA. I certainly don't believe that James Dobson and Pat Robertson speak for George Pataki, Olympia Snowe, John McCain and Chuck Hagel. Perhaps those on the right can afford us on the left the same courtesy.

As for the "either with us or against us crowd", I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm open to reasonable solutions that do not maintain the status quo. I think Julia Stein's comments are a good starting point.

[Nell]

Applause for Julia Stein's contributions.

I'd like to add one to mine: Bring to trial the civilian and military leadership who made torture official policy.

For every explicitly military action and counter-intelligence program aimed at thwarting terror attacks, there has to be corresponding political/social action that gives the broader Islamic publics reason to see that we are NOT their enemy.

[richard lo cicero]

Jules Stein's reply pretty much said what I would have said in answering your questions. I have no problem with military actions where appropriate as in Afghanistan and I would hve been ruthless in imploying American ground forces at Tora Bora, see what I said above.

But I note that the planning and execution for 9/11 was conducted out of European cells as was Madrid and London. These cells are not going to be expelled by military force - at least I don't see us bombing Hamburg again, do you? So what we have here is a law enforcement task and that means working with our allies. The Spanish example has already been pointed out. I know it is fashionable to sneer at this by those who never spent a day in the military but are mesmerised by Tom Clancy fantasies or the latest JAG episode but if the terrorist are safely behind bars they can't harm us. Of course this means we have to play well with others, something our current rulers have trouble with.

We certainly need to examine our Middle East policy and I think that goes beyond being even handed in the Isreali/Palestinian question. I doubt if anyone here disagrees with that unless there soime Likudniks here who I've missed. But the promotion of democratic values and a little arm twisting of our Saudi "friends" is in order and, therefore, a program of energy independence certainly has a role. Beyond that we have to get serious about non-proliferation and that means involving ourselves with the Kashmir conflict since that has led to the grievences in South Asia. The Nuclear status of a state like Pakistan has to concern us but we cannot expect the Paks to forego A Weapons as long as the Indians have it. Will these approaches be easy? Of course not. But what we are doing now clearly doesn't make us safer.

I suppose you'll want to talk about Iraq. Well we have to get out as soon as possible. That means real goals and timetables. And even then we have to understand that there are now no good solutionms, only less terrible ones. Sorry, but that's the truth and all the fine words of the pro-war party won't change that.

By the way Marc, what would you do? I know you don't like the "Left" position (whatever that is). But what is your plan?

[Nell]

I have a meeting to go to, but promised to respond to Marc's characterization of the Afghan war.

Jimmy Carter & Zbig Brziniski began U.S. arming of Afghan militants to lure the Soviets into invasion.
Ronald Reagan and his CIA massively expanded it, fundrasing among other Islamic countries and encouraging them to send their young zealots to train and fight. So the _Soviets_ are solely responsible for the millions of Afghans killed in Afghanistan from 1979 onward, and the vast increase in strength of the Islamic extremist organizations, not to mention the destruction of Pakistani politics and society through the 1980s and early 1990s?

It takes two to tango. The Soviet occupation was a brutal counterinsurgency war; the insurgents were funded and equipped by us, and we turned a blind eye to the drug dealers and fundamentalist zealots among them.
And we supported forces in Pakistan who took it backwards in every respect, particularly wrt the values Abramsky urges we defend.

And, on the subject of left criticism: Marc, I don't object to criticism of the left. I object to blaming the far left for the rise of the right.

Yeah, we on the left are electorally marginal, including those like myself who are somewhere between Pilger and Cooper. Part of the reason is our own fault, and part is that a whole hell of a lot of truths are untellable in broad, mainstream politics, where every story has to have a sunshine-y, we're-the-best-country-in-the-world frame.

Your anger at the left's marginalization seems to grow from the feeling that those of us on your left are holding you back, holding the whole progressive movement back. Otherwise, why would you spend so much time focusing on such a tiny slice?

In truth, my actual politics, just as is true for Randy Paul and even more so for Reg, are a lot closer to yours than you pretend. The caricature of me in your mind makes me laugh; I've spent so many years of my life working in election campaigns, labor-community organizations focused on things like natural gas and utility prices. The anti-Iraq-war organization I helped build in my home town is as broad and un-Pilger-like as you and Todd Gitlin could wish. But you need cartoon figures to distinguish your superior brand of left activism from, and every now and then I'm happy to provide them (as in my first comment on this thread). Right now I have to go continue marginalizing the left by running a phone bank for Tim Kaine.

[richard lo cicero]

Sorry Julia. I don't know why I had the founder of MCA on my mind.

[Marc Cooper]

Im gonna be laughing for days on this one. What a load of bloviating. Its like a SNL skit, all these folks unable (with a few exceptions) to directly answer a few simple questions!!!

I have answered those questions many many times before on this blog by raising them and addressing them-- and when I do all I get is B.S. back from the posters who want to say Im in the pay of David Horowitz.

My answers come to me immediately.

1) There is a real and immediate threat posed by the aggressive action of Jihadist groups.

2)The scope is cleatly global. The jihadists didnt bomb Bali for the second time because they were aggravated by U.S. imperialism (LOL).

3) We should support all military action necessary to take out command, control and operational functions of the Jihadist networks. If we cant trust the Bush admin to do so then we better damn well find one that can and will. We clearly failed in Afghanistan, the one formal state who chose to intertwine itself with Al Qaeda-- we sent about 1/10th the number of troops necessary. We also need to retool our intelligence agencies to provide better human intelligence so we can focus military action. We need to use international tools to financially strangle these groups. And, yes, if we catch them, Im all in favor of "law enforcement" prosecution-- but that last step is NOT the major weapon we have. To carry out the military side of this policy we need to restablish confidence with our traditional allies who have been alienated by this admin.
Domestically, we need to take much more seriously the notion of Homeland Defense. Training of communities to respond to major disasters is clearly woeful. We need to harden obvious targets like airports, port and subways. We need to seriously address the question of public health access -- which is currently denied to millions of Americans. Liberals need to engage in a serious discussion about what sort of Federal police power needs to be expanded and what doesnt. (You cant have it both way friends i.e. insisting this a law enforcement problem and then opposing any and every augmentation of police power without as much as a dialogue). My discussion with the most liberal of federal public defenders tells me that there are 2 or 3 sections of the Patriot Act which are intolerable and dangerous-- while much of the rest of it makes sense. Sorry. Who here has researched the act and is willing to argue it point by point? And someone above made a snide point about deporting radical Imams from Brooklyn/ Well, Im opposed to such a blanket idea but certainly open to look at individual cases -- arent you? We would demand the same of Austrian Neo-Nazis who came to America and set up lodges in Idaho, wouldnt we?
Policy wise, we need real and immediate comprehensive immigration reform. The flow of human traffic across the border must be legalized and regulated. The current hypocrtical policy of exploiting illegal labor while simukltaneously allowing a free-for-all along the border does abslutely nothing except re-inforce a repressive anf right-wing movement of xenophobes who can somehwat legitimatelt point to a gaping hole in national security. We need, of course, to implement a more balanced policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to stop aggravating the region; likewise we need to curtail our support for dictatorships in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. And when it comes to Iraq we must find a way -- if theres still anyway-- to replace our occupation with some sort of pan-Arab force or international force that allows us to leave but guarantees some modicum of stability. Renouncing permanent bases in Iraq is another helpful idea-- though it aint gonna happen.
In sum, I would say NONE of these sketchy ideas have any real political relevance (beyond a meaningless blog debate) unless you are willing to accept the topline argument: i.e. that a Jihadist threat exists as an imminent danger ; that it has its own agency independent of our national sins; and that it is the obligation of any responsible government to use all means necessary to protect its population from attack by these elements-- including military means.

To Randy, a note: I understand your negative reaction to what you call some of the broad bush painting about the Left. To your credit,Randy, you dont hang around with the professional and full time salaried activists that some of us are forced to deal with more regularly and who hold greatly disproportionate power in the planning of public eevents etc., Of course they do not speak for you nor do they invalidate your own thoughts and actions. I think that Sasha was directing his fire at these folks and certainly not people like you. In fact I know that.
And also...it is obvious to me that ...however you want to put it.... the bulk of the blame, the central focus, etc on probloems like this have to be focused on those who really hold power and who really make policy. Of course. I would hope we all agree on that. But this sort of thread we're in now was consciously started by me NOT to blame John Pilger and Naomi Klein for the disastrous policies engendered by Bush-- but rather as a means for those who oppose those policies to explore ways to be more effective. That's all. In that sense, I find Sasha's piece to be quite important. I think the responses on this thread only underline that need.

[Marc Cooper]

Nell. I have no cariacture of you in my head. And i try to respect everyone who posts here.

Im aware of the Carter-Zbig revelations of a few years ago. But come on -- your're NOT really saying WE made the Soviets invade Afghanistan? Please. That's too ridiculous. Did we want to exploit that possibility? Sure. But... um... like Al Qaeda, the Soviets also had agency for God's sake.

[roger merith]

Belief in an extremist religious world view is what produced 9/11.

--interesting, the flourishing of such world views is divorced from political contexts?

[roger merith]

"Im aware of the Carter-Zbig revelations of a few years ago. But come on -- your're NOT really saying WE made the Soviets invade Afghanistan? Please. That's too ridiculous. Did we want to exploit that possibility? Sure. But... um... like Al Qaeda, the Soviets also had agency for God's sake."

Your notion of agency seems to preclude any serious criticism of the Carter-Zbig role in the matter and later the Reagan/Rather team's role in continuing the policy into the late 80's. Looks like Sheehan's not as dumb as you make her out to be.
Then again, lately she seems to be putting faith in Hillary and your ideas about sending even more troops to Iraq to 'fix' the Iraq quaqmire...

[Abbas-Ali Abadani]

Nice post, Virgil.

Jim Russell: "Maybe this is why some have difficulty getting support for their cause or elected to office. They can't communicate with ordinary people. They over-analyze and over complicate."

That's right. Why "over complicate" when you can just dumb it down to the level of "ordinary" people. "Evildoers. That's what they are. Why ask why? They're just evil."

"You know what terrorism is and so does everyone else."

Yes, of course. When bombs explode on public transportation outlets in London, killing 50-60 people and wounding scores more, that's terrorism. When the two tallest buildings in Manhattan are destroyed by airplanes acting as bombs, killing 2800 people, shutting down the world's financial center, throwing the nation into panic, wounding the psyche of the population of one of the world's greatest cities, that's terrorism.

*But* when an entire nation is systematically starved, diseased, bombed, invaded, destroyed and dismembered over the course of some fifteen years -- well that's just "freedom" and "democracy" in action. And when hundreds of thousands of its people; many of them women and children, are killed as a result, well, like the Old Man said, "you can't make on omelet without breaking a few eggs." No harm done. It wasn't "intentional" after all.

http://cryptome.org/mccaffrey-sh.htm

http://www.antiwar.com/rep/coren1.html

http://tinyurl.com/9obku

http://www.againstbombing.org/Reeceiraq.htm

http://vitw.org/economic_sanctions/

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php

http://redstateson.blogspot.com/2005/10/liberation-update.html

What I can't figure out is what the hell those crazy ass sand monkeys are still howling about. I mean after all "we've" done for them, you'd think they'd show some gratitude.

[Robert Fiore]

One thing this discussion points out is a basic weakness of the “root causes” argument, whether it applies to crime or terrorism. What the root causes argument says to the person who is being robbed or threatened with immolation in a subway tunnel is that they’re just going to have to take their medicine until they address the root causes. Thus the root cause argument ultimately becomes a kind of political extortion. The trouble is, the people aren’t going to sit there and take their medicine, they’re going to look for gangsters who actually provide protection.

[reg]

Marc, I've been away from this thread, but I'm sort of confused by the questions you asked me (with others, of course) about two posts down from a pretty long, extensive response to essentially those same questions from Dan O. There's nothing that I've written that downplays al Qaeda or implies that they are merely our creation. In fact, I think it's pretty obvious I take al Qaeda more seriously than Bush & Co, because I don't approach it either opportunistically or as a cover for another set of goals involving hegemony, insider petrol politics, covering one's own tracks, etc. Unless one has a serious approach to the real danger one can't come up with serious response. Chicken Littles and boys crying "Wolf" weaken our defense against very real, deadly threats. Regarding our "creating" al Qaeda, that's nonsense, but I have written the obvious on another thread - that we foolishly strengthened them, as we strengthened a lot of regional bad actors in the context of the cold war. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a a horrible, totally unjust imperial episode with disastrous results for the people of both countries, but that doesn't mean it was wise of us to arm groups that were obviously just as bad or worse than the Soviet puppets. That was one, like the Iran /Iraq war, that we should have let play out without - in each case - strenghtening what was arguably the greater of the evils involved (certainly obvious in retrospect).

[stein_julia]

Dear Marc,

We do have some areas of agreement:
1. the public is woefully unprepared for disasters, so more should be done here (actually Bush cut funds for this which need to be restored)
2. Too many Americans lack access to public health; more Americans need acess to public health, particularly with the avian bird flu on the horizon
3. U.S. not to support dictatorships in Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt
4. Using pan-Arab force in Iraq while U.S. withdraws
5. Changing U.S. policy on Israel/Pakistan
Ok, we agree on a lot of points.

I have long been interested in bin Laden because my cousin was in Tower 2 when bin Laden's people drove the plane into the buildings, but my cousin luckily surived. After doing a lot of reaseach and reading Robert Fisk's arguments that it was bin Laden's group that did it, I decided that bin Laden was responsbile before the U.S. government did.

But the mass media dialogue right after 9/11 never never never really examined U.S. dreadful foreign policy for decades that contributed to bin Laden's rise and his attacks on the World Trade Center. I think to begin to even solve the problem one has to look at the causes, and that dialogue the left, bless us, has been engaging in for 4 years.

I used the word "contributed to bin Laden's rise" but I, of course, think bin Laden has agency.

The problem, as many people have said, is that criticzing, for instance, Carter and Regan's policy of arming Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan is far different from saying that these fundamentalists have no agency.
Yes, they have agency, but would have had little guns except for Carter and Regan.

Again, Saddam Hussein, bad as he was to his own people, was contained by 2002, no danger to any foreign state, and had nothing to do with bin Laden. So Bush invades Iraq based on faulty intelligence, forged documents, and lies. Again, criticizng Bush's folly in no way says that bin Laden has no agency. He has agency, but I think the global police work has made him a lot less effective.

This country has to start being honest with both its own citizens and the Arab world if we can ever hope to be change our policies both at home and abroad.

That's why I think Abramsky is so wrong. I think he's made up jihadis as a global bogeyman intent on "conquest"
and "al-Qaida is classically imperialist ...." Well, I've studied Middle Eastern history at UCLA and UC Berkeley (with Bernard Lewis among other people) and read the Koran (all of it) and Abramsky gives zero proof for his statements. The last imperialists out of the Middle East that threatened the West were the Turks who besiged Vienna about 6 centuries ago. At the moment, dear Abramsky and friends, the U.S.-friendly Saudi dictatorship controls the two holiest cities of Islam--Mecca and Medina--while the Israelis control the 3rd holist city of Jerusalem. Bagdad, the center of the medieval Islamic caliphate, is occupied by the U.S. So bin Laden exploits Arab grievances about Western dominance of their holy cities, important cultural cities, oil etc. etc. That's a far cry from jihadi "conquest" and "imperalist."
The Turks trying to conquer Vienna six centuries ago were imperalist. Bin Laden is something else.

[richard lo cicero]

Marc maybe I missed something but what is it that we're in disagrement on in this thread other than my continuing puzzlement over your fixation with a fringe on the Left - though I understand why you feel that way given your past and the "wars" you've seen. I really think we're in agreement over Afghanistan. And as to Law Enforcement I really think that if you want to roll up the terror nets in Europe and S.E. Asia that is a major component. If you want to add intelligence assets, well of course. Sorry if that was not clear.

I agree that large parts of the Patriot Act are OK (But what an offensive, Orwellian, name). Still, you don't have to have your head in the stand to oppose things like indefinite detention. They didn't have much of a terror problem in the USSR but that's not my idea of "Democratic" state. I won't quote Ben Franklin here - I'm sure you know what he said. And I agree with Immigration reform but didn't you damn Bill Clinton on another thread for signing a bill that made it easier to deport people? I'd sure feel better if some of those Brookln Imans were easier to get rid of. That's just one aspect of the Immigration problem, however, and our porious border is another. Still, let's save that for another time when we can consider that.

Finally one example of the incompetence of this crew. An adminstration really on the ball would be pouring aid and assistance into NW Pakistan after the quake. Digbhy points out on his blog that Osama is providing relief, just like Hamas and Hezbollah do in runing social services in their areas. Guess who is winning the "Hearts and Minds" battle? And this is really funny considering that this is the country of Tammany Hall, James Michael Curly, and the Chicago Democratic Machine. Maybe we should dig up some ward healers from Boston and Chicago and send them to Peshawar with "Walking around" money!

[richard lo cicero]

I'm a little confused myself Marc. I really don't see that much difference between what you are saying and what I posted here. We both agree that there is a real terror threat that has to be dealt with. I simply feel that this administration has had too many "alerts" that seem to coincide with politically embarrasing events for Bush and Company. The people has become, understandbly, cynical, and that can't be good for security.

We also seem to agree that "Homeland Security" is a joke. The dumping of political hacks in that department goes beyond being funny and the lack of funds for first responders is a scandal. Where do we differ? I agree that most of the "Patriot Act" is OK but what a terrible, Orwellian name! Still I'm against indefinite detention aren't you? Does that make me soft on terror? Immigration? Sure we need to talk about that but didn't you denounce Clinton for signing a bill making it easier to deport people and tightening asylum rules? And, sure we need to tighten up the border but when did you support more border patrol agents. Immigration is an important topic and deserves a thread of its own so I'll leave it there.

As for Afghanistan we both seem to agree that it was woefully mishandled and we both agree Iraq was a needless diversion - a lie I'd call it. And I've told you what I would do. If you don't like what is better? Finally I'd note that a smart administration would be pouring aid and assistance into NW Pakistan after the quake. From what I read Osama Bin Laden is putting funds into the area which ought to make him even more popular there. Funny, we're the country of Tammany Hall, James Michael Curley, and Chicago Ward Healers. We practically invented the art of winning "Hearts and Minds". Now we leave to Osama and people like Hezbollah and Hama who run effective social services where governments can't or won't. Maybe we should send some Ward Healers from Mayor Daley's Chicago to Peshawar with some "walking around" money!

[richard lo cicero]

Sorry for the slightly different posts but I thought typekey swallowed the first one.

[Jim Rockford]

Marc -- you have captured my feelings very well.

I believe that the US is mostly a positive force for good in the world, particularly since the end of the Cold War and the realization that the old "authoritarian" regimes ala the noxious theory of Jeanne Kirpatrick was both evil and stupid, self-defeating. Yet where is the idea of progress, and building a better, more connected, more prosperous, and more dynamic world community if we have to put up with monsters like Al Qaeda?

To me 9/11 brought home the realization that my isolationism was wrong, that people died that day not because the US was "evil" but that the future (the US, Sweden, the UK, France, parts of China, Thailand however intermittently, Denmark, and many other places) are fighting against the superstitious and frankly, evil past.

This is the same fight Anatole France, Mark Twain, Stendhal, and Emile Zola fought against. When Al Qaeda in Thailand beheads Buddhist monks, or blows up villagers in Zamboanga Philippines, or blows up people in Xianxing Province China, it's the same fight. One that came to us unwillingly but one we sadly can't avoid, and one that connects us to the world.

Cenizio -- I would disagree. I believe that Al Qaeda and bin Laden falling squarely in the mainstream Islamic tradition have a great deal of scalability among Islamic society, rich and poor alike. Islamic societies haven't changed because in some ways (the spiritual brotherhood that deeply affected Westerners from Sir Richard Francis Burton to Malcolm X) has been "too strong," hence the need to continue in old ways and scapegoat rather than embrace ala Japan or South Korea or China a challenging future. Al Qaeda in scale/scope is merely echoing the long tradition of North African piracy and enslavement and tribute seeking against Europeans, only ended btw when the US bombarded Algiers and Tunis. The idea that raiding the infidel and forcing "jizya" or tribute will work is both a fundamental tenet of Islam and one supported by over thirty years of bipartisan non-response to this problem by the US. Multi-culturalism such as Britain's banning of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet from Government offices and the Tate stopping pre-emptively any exhibits likely to offend Muslims or dropping National Holocaust Remembrance Day (Muslims objected) or proposed changes to the flag (removing the Cross) only encourages this. With disastrous results if things are pushed too far.

Imagine a nuclear strike by an emboldened Al Qaeda on US cities. The strategic retaliation and social/political/economic landscape scares me to death. I would argue almost anything is preferable to this fate and only strong action can prevent it. This of course puts me in direct opposition to Nell who seems to think that showing weakness to Al Qaeda will result in Al Qaeda acting like Nell, or any limited objective Westerner. Al Qaeda is not like us, they don't think like us or act like us or want things like us. They behead people on camera for fun. That alone should give you a clue.

Zawahari's letter to Zarqawi restates Al Qaeda's goals: 1. Conquer Iraq as a base for global terror. 2. Use Iraq to conquer Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Saudi as the "core" of the world-wide global Caliphate (Bush is absolutely right on this one). 3. Continue the fight against the West until the Koran's prophecy is fulfilled and one man (bin Laden) rules the entire world under Sharia, with infidels dead or converted into the faithful.

" Atran: What can the West, especially the US, do to make the world more peaceful?

Abu Bakar Bashir: They have to stop fighting Islam. That’s impossible because it is sunnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam ... We’ll keep fighting them and they’ll lose. The batil [falsehood] will lose sooner or later. I sent a letter to Bush. I said that you’ll lose and there is no point for you [to fight us]. This [concept] is found in the Koran.

Atran: How can the American regime and its policies change?

Abu Bakar Bashir: We’ll see. As long as there is no intention to fight us and Islam continues to grow there can be peace. This is the doctrine of Islam. Islam can’t be ruled by others. Allah’s law must stand above human law. There is no [example] of Islam and infidels, the right and the wrong, living together in peace."

Abu Bakar Bashir is the jailed head of JI in Indonesia, a state that is ruled by Muslim Parties and opposed the Iraq War. Nell to take your position you'd have to actively disbelieve EVERY WORD from every Islamist. It's the Caliphate, stupid (to paraphrase Clinton).

We tried under Clinton to stop Al Qaeda short of war through covert ops, Freeh shows the fallacy of that arrangement, along with Clarke and Scheuer, and it's not just Clinton. Policy doesn't work that way. It's either full speed or dead stop, that's the way government and policy and politics works. Go to any mil blog run by former covert ops guys, I'd recommend Froggy Ruminations with Matthew Heidt, a former SEAL. They will tell you Spec Ops is great but ultimately limited in what they can and cannot do. They are not a substitute for broad military action because politicians are afraid of real armed conflict, casualties, and political cost and will ALWAYS (Desert One/Mogadishu) fail when used in that way. They are a force multiplier and adjunct not (Don Rumsfeld aside) a replacement for Marines and soldiers. ANY SEAL, Delta, or Ranger guy will tell you this. Don't take my word for it ask Matt.

An FDR mobilization against our real enemies (Mullahs in Iran, Saudi princes, Syrian Baathists, and Pakistan's Generals) ending up with replacing those regimes, all together, and bin Laden strung up by his heels ala Mussolini would end bin Laden's "strong horse" argument and bring peace to ourselves, particularly if matched by profiling, monitoring of hate-mosques and imams, and pushing back on the PC Multi-Culti to demand assimilation in this nation.

Failing that, what Marc said. I can't argue with what he's proposing. It makes a LOT of sense.

"There is no [example] of Islam and infidels, the right and the wrong, living together in peace." I don't see anyone but Marc proposing a strategy to deal with this.

[Marc Cooper]

So Julia, while we're having the debate over our own comissions and omissions and as we are agreeing over the lack of health care and while were' all waiting to elect a new american administration that will spill its guts to the people about our sordid past (and present) what do you propose we actually DO about jihadist networks that plan attacks on the U.S. and other soft civilian targets? "International police work" didnt stop the bombings in London or Bali. Are you in favor of hunting down these folks and maybe killing them? I sort of like that idea.

[Marc Cooper]

RLC.. in passing. I have always supported more Border Patrol agents. Maybe it's better I turn the question around. Who on the Left is supporting tighter border controls in conjunction with reform (answer: some unions. Kennedy.) I criticized Clinton for a one-way immigration policy and stand completey by that.

But back to the main subject; Talking to a friend today on the phone, I thinkw e summarized the CORRECT answers I was looking for to me 3 question quiz.

Here is the right answer:

Islamic jihadists pose a real and serious global threat and have already shown their willingness to commit mass murder in NY, Madrid, London and Bali. They should be hunted down and quashed by all means necessary (within constitutional limits). This is an imperative. Unfortuntaey, Bush policy has made things worse. We need to change the administration and many of its policies but not flag in confronting religious fanatics who wantonly murder civilians. Period.

[tim]

Dear 'Joe' (is that Just Plain Working-Class Joe, perhaps? Oh sorry, didn't mean to insult the suffering proletarians you represent.)
Thank you for clarifying why I don't want to have anything to do with you or the House of Bedlam you are apparently associated with. I always assumed I had to protect myself around people who talk to themselves, now it's confirmed.

[marky48]

"Are you in favor of hunting down these folks and maybe killing them? I sort of like that idea."

I do too. Keep it covert and actually get them this time. Lose the big show. It's a loser.