When the planes crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, “everything changed.” Or so people said. This terrifying post-9/11 world required new strategies, new weapons and an entirely new war—on terror, itself. Progressive critics were immediately dismissed by the keepers of conventional wisdom as deluded fools with “a pre-9/11 world view.” But, as the past four-plus years have revealed,… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (7)Page 1 of 1 pageshttp://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/18/scandal/index.html
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/18/scandal/index.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1010
WE will get out of iraq when we get a new president.
Posted by brian28 on May 23, 2006 at 9:30 PM As for the illegal, immoral occupation of Palestine, if we keep yakking about it long enough, there will be nothing left to dispute, which is obviously the plan.
Posted by opeluboy on May 23, 2006 at 11:22 PM An interesting discussion with several useful observations and suggestions. I also found it interesting that some of the things being criticized were evidenced in the words of the participants. Understanding and objectivity seem to be universal traits.
Perhaps most important there is agreement among the group that the terrorist threat is real and more than a U.S. problem. Certainly multinational cooperation is needed if we are to avoid a global conflict.
There seemed to be a consensus that democracy should be promoted, but a naive expectation that it is universally desired.
Viewing the region as a whole rather than piecemeal would be a new approach — getting politicians to think “big” would be miraculous.
The specific comments on the Iraq situation is quite candid, “I really don’t see that the United States has any happy options in Iraq. The situation is almost beyond repair.
Unless we admit to a failed approach and can enlist more support from other countries, there will not be a way to put a lid on the internal strife and insurgent agitators. Until then how can any form of stable governing proceed? Bosnia/Kosovo could be a useful pattern.
What to call all this. “War on Terror” is too all encompassing and vague. “Islamic fundamentalism” was rejected. The later use of “religious extremist” seems better.
All fundamentalists, however, are not created equal. There is far less likelihood (post crusades) for Christians to call for killing solely based on religious differences. In fact just the opposite is expressed Biblically — “love your enemy” — is a basic theme. Here again I would avoid fundamentalist and opt for extremist as the defining adjective.“American academic, political analysts, media and lobbyists are gearing up to wage a new, overarching conflict with terrorism and political Islam.”
Yes, the events of the past couple of decades have a tendency to arouse people — change “...conflict with terrorism and political Islam,” to vicious extremists and I’ll vote for that.
The price/availability of oil is only mentioned as a passing comment — I believe this is a major factor in all of this conflict. There are people in both East and West for whom this is the driving issue. Greed is a universal language.
Would the oil rich of the Mideast be any more agreeable to abandoning petroleum based energy than Texans? I doubt it.
Posted by whattheheck on May 24, 2006 at 2:06 PM Correction: Should read…
“Understanding and objectivity seem to be universally missing traits.”
Posted by whattheheck on May 24, 2006 at 4:21 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR20050919018 859.html
http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9006
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/war-goes-pop-protest-music-rocks-us/11326-2.html<
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-sweet242.html
Posted by brian28 on May 24, 2006 at 11:37 PM The choices that the US has in the MIddle East grow narrower every day that the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq continues. This is also true of the occupation of Palestine by Israel. Bush has recently blamed suicide bombings for most of the problems in Iraq and for Iraq’s inability to reach a stable and peaceful political solution to its problems. The Balkanization of the country and its turning into a new Lebanon is the real problem in Iraq, not terrorism. The fratricidal civil war, which came about mostly through US imperialist meddling with Iraq’s internal affairs as it attempted to impose a new constitution federating the country’s eighteen provinces along ethno-religious lines, is the real source of the violence committed by sectarian militias with improvised explosives in the name of asserting their political will as separate identities. Ethnic cleansing is now the order of the day and the Sunnis suffer disproportionately. Terrorism claims proportionately few lives compared to sectarian militia violence. It is well known that since the constitutional referendum in 2005 the Sunnis have born the brunt of the attacks by militias trained and armed by the US like the Badr Brigades of the Shi’ite SCIRI organization. The Kurdish Peshmerga have been armed and trained by the CIA and encouraged to expel the Sunnis of Kirkuk and areas around this city and other Kurdish cities in Mosul.
US imperialism sees the Sunnis as it saw the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia—as an inconvenient holdover from a nationalist past which is obstructing imperialism’s plans to fragment formerly unified countries along sectarian lines in order to more easily globalize the local economy through transnational corporate investment and trade. Continuing nationalism can only politically fetter these goals. The US must cease. Self determination must be allowed for all people’s. US meddling is now the source of the violence. The US role must change for a peaceful political solution to succeed.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on May 27, 2006 at 3:17 AM There is a report on Opinion Journal from an Iraqi woman who has worked in their government which is somewhat optimstic.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110008440
She stated one of the things I have felt for a long time — we should have taken Saddam in 1991 and also how the U.S. failure to establish order (IMO due to too few troops) showed almost immediately. Her opinion of Paul Bremer reinforces the “Cobra ll”(by Gordon and Trainor) evaluation of his heavy handed running of “nation building.”
I know Bush CAN"T read and I guess Rumsfelt just won’t.
Some samples of the article:
———————————& ————-
“That was the moment for regime change (in Gulf War 1991). Saddam was so weak. The international community was united. The Iraqi people were not so damaged.” Besides, “I had faith the U.S. wouldn’t target people.”
———————————& —————
But the looting that followed did more than just property damage: “It showed the Americans were not in control,” she says. The perception was both lasting and fatal.
———————————& —————
[she sees] Paul Bremer as an outstanding details man who “knew everything about water, electricity and oil.” But he was remarkably ignorant about Iraq, had zero communications skills, and was peremptory in his personal dealings. Still worse was the staff of the Coalition Provisional Authority. “The CPA did not invest in empowering Iraqi politicians, in training them,” she says. “They took over everything. Culturally, that was unacceptable to Iraqis.”
———————————& —————
Another good read:
I am now reading, “The West’s Last Chance,” by Tony Blankley. He is disturbed by how few people are taking the Islamic extremist threat seriously in the U.S. He points out how even European liberals have become increasingly concerned and are demanding policy changes.
Posted by whattheheck on May 28, 2006 at 4:10 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Lakshmi Chaudhry
- The Godless Fundamentalist
In The Root of All Evil, biologist Richard Dawkins reveals his own lust for certainty - The Power of Mean
Fuller argues that the moral power of Rankism = that everyone experiences being a somebody and a nobody - can overcome the innate force of bullying? - Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
The Bush administration's pragmatic policy toward Pakistan suggests its foreign policy is less ideological than imperial - The True Temptations of the West
Temptations of the West: How to be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond is a travelogue by Pankaj Mishra about the shadow of poverty in South Asia. - Why Hemingway Is Chick-Lit
Women read more fiction than men. - What Not to Watch
Makeover shows like "What Not to Wear" teach women to listen to their inner demons
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
