At 09:11 10/09/02 -0400, you wrote:
(EW)
<<<<
Keith, I know all that. I've been busy, but I've followed at least some of
the stuff people have put on the list about Bush's intentions. The point I
was trying to make was that the number of people who hate America is
growing and spreading,
>>>>
I'd like to suggest that when people are stressed badly enough they're
capable of believing anything and doing anything. By "people" what we
really mean, when talking about the Muslim countries today, are the excess
numbers of young men without jobs who can, and do, come out in the streets
at the drop of a hat. They may well call themselves anti-American because
that's an acceptable slogan given the nature of their culture, but I don't
believe they really are at all. I've mentioned previously some of the brief
insights that I've picked up from journalists in both Iran and Saudi Arabia
where, given the slightest slackening of the religious leash, young people
take to dancing in the streets with western music and dancing. (As soon as
the Taliban was defeated in Afghanistan, millions of tapes and CDs of
western music were brought out of hiding and filled the shops of Kabul
within days.) Yes, there are fanatical terrorists who are specifically
anti-American -- but they're extremely rare, even in Muslim countries.
(EW)
<<<<
. . . [growing and spreading] as is the ability to manufacture weaponry of
mass destruction. It's like sowing dragons teeth. Git Husain and a
hundred more Husains will spring up. Pakistan, a place seething with
anti-western feelings, now has the bomb and God knows what else and the US
hold on Pakistan is very tenuous. Remove Musharraf and someone far less
friendly may take over. Before its collapse, the Soviet Union had advanced
mass destructive technology. Surely much of that is still around somewhere.
>>>>
I'm much less worried about the use of WMD than you are (so long as there's
one superpower with many more!). The possession of them does more to bring
about a sense of responsibility than almost anything else. I don't think
we'll ever see small countries using them because they'll be looking over
their shoulder towards America or Russia or China. I'm much more worried
about the fact that they possess them -- that is, whether they have
sufficient technical personnel to maintain WMD safely. But then, I'm also
worried about the ability of the big countries to maintain their WMD safely
year after year.
(EW)
<<<<
In general, Sir Michael Howard notwithstanding, there is no single specific
adversary.
>>>>
Yes, that's what he saying -- but, being tribal creatures with
leadership/followership carved into our genes over millions of ears we
always need a leader-figure to hate or to love. That's how, after September
11, Bush was able to switch the American people's anger at a nebulous Al
Qaeda network into a specific hatred of Saddam who had nothing to do with
it ('cos it would have been too dangerous).
(EW)
<<<<
There are millions and perhaps potentially billions of them. My fear about
what Bush may be unleashing is something that will fester for centuries.
In a previous posting, I suggested that the US attack on Iraq will begin an
endless chain of body bags. Someone shot me down by saying no, no, no, the
Americans will very quickly beat up on Husain. I agree, but that will only
be the first step in something that will go one for a very long time.
>>>>
I'm not complacent about the above possibility -- far from it. I think the
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld strategy is potentially extremely dangerous and wrote
so on FW many weeks ago. But, as the tension has risen, it's occurred to me
that the policy might just work. There have been a few small, but quite
definite, signs recently that the political leaders of Iran, Pakistan, and
Syria are battening down seriously on their terrorist networks (and, in
today's FT, it's mentioned that even Arafat has spoken out against
terrorism against Israel). Power (as with possession of nuclear weapons)
*does* give responsibility and the political leaders of those Muslim
nations are not necessarily blind to the repercussions in allowing the
clerics unlimited scope in fomenting anti-Americanism. Thus far, and no
further, they are now saying to their hotheads.
I think the sub-heading of Noam Chomsky's article is wrong ("By attacking
Iraq, the US will invite a new wave of terrorist attacks"). If the Al Qaeda
network is still operational, then it will continue to attack America
whether Iraq is invaded or not. But I agree with the tenor of Chomsky's
article -- the Bush strategy is dangerous and there ought to be
constructive ways to bring the Muslim countries into the western fold.
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
