On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Dan Minette wrote:
> > Experts in international relations aren't smelling very good today, in my
> > opinion.
>
> Why not? Unless you wish to put forth the proposition that, if the United
> States acts properly in the world, there will be no groups who hate the US
> so much as to be willing to launch such an attack. I've been reading about
> the risk of terrorist attacks in the US for years, and I don't think it is
> the job of international relations specialists to stop attacks before they
> happen.
No, it's not, and maybe I'm just blowing off steam here, but for as long
as I can remember, the conventional wisdom from our experts has basically
fallen along the lines of "Arab extremists bad! US corporations good!"
And yes, they have predicted over and over again that terrorism will
eventually happen. What I never hear is a genuine addressing of the other
side's point of view, or a recommendation that we address those with
grievances against us as anything other than instances of
bizarre ideological flaws.
While I'm sure that today's scheme was masterminded by some pretty cynical
bastards, I'm just as sure that the suicide bombers were doing what they
did because, in their world, the US is the blind and deaf leviathan that
destroys everything in its path and must be stopped "by whatever means
necessary." They live in a world of constant war thanks largely to
western intervention in their lives, and America is the symbol of that
fumbling greed. How can they not, at some point, fight back?
> If anyone, airport security might be at fault. I'm guessing that a hole was
> found...maybe plastic guns or something. But I cannot see how international
> relations experts should be responsible for air port security.
Well, airport security experts have been telling us for a long time that
our airport security measures are woefully inadequate. The IR experts
aren't responsible for the attack, obviously, but when I listen to the
stupid bewilderment of our press, and the equally stupid commentary of our
leaders, it seems pretty obvious to me that our IR experts have done damn
little to enable us to walk in the other culture's shoes, which is the
first basis for understanding anybody.
Or maybe I'm just prejudiced and angry. Or maybe the IR experts are
brilliant at what they do, but nobody ever listens. I rather doubt it,
though.
> I'd argue that, the United States couldn't help but make enemies if it acts
> properly in the world. For example, if it stopped the genocide in Rawanda
> (sp), it would have made enemies.
>
> If, as is suspected, that bin Laden worked out of Afganastan with the
> protection and blessing of that government in order to launch this attack,
> why should the US not consider it an act of war perpetrated by the
> Afganastan government. Is it unreasonable to think that the US has the right
> to demand the extradiction of the people that it determines to be
> responsible for this. That if a government was responsible, we have the
> right to ensure that this government will be removed?
I don't know, maybe because the government of Afghanistan is a fairly
utter shambles, still caught up in the civil war stemming from the
Taliban's seizure of power the last time I heard, and can't really be
considered a normal government by our standards? Moreover, the solutions
you propose above don't exactly include nuking them out of hand, which is
the proposition I was commenting on.
>
>
> >Maybe the cliches and jingoism _should_ end, so we can get some real
> thinking done.
>
> What sort of real thinking do you have in mind. Would
Totally rethinking Middle East policy, maybe? Taking a hard look at what
it means to be the world's superpower, and thinking that maybe if we make
a decision NOT to be an Empire, then we're going to have to find ways to
live with what happens when our consumerist/capitalist juggernaut
provokes people utterly determined to resist our unwanted intrusions to
the death? Arabs seem to take the motto "Live free or die" quite
seriously, and by their standards the US is the threat to freedom.
If might does not make right, and if we have the moral high ground, and if
we believe it is not our business to forcibly reeducate all the tribes of
the world, and if military empire is not our goal, then we're going to
have to be prepared to accept some of the resistance that arises while
we wait for our ideological influences to percolate and lubricate the way
for our commercial empire to expand.
Damn, I don't know if any of that makes any sense at this point.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
For music that won't bugger your soul: www.guyforsyth.com
"The ego that sees a 'thou' is fundamentally different from an ego that
sees an 'it.'" -- Joseph Campbell
