Re: FW Noam Chomsky in The Guardian Sept. 9

[Ed Weick]

> (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.   I don't disagree.  But see my response to Karen on the consequences of being absolutely stuck.  Question: will the kids in Afghanistan keep dancing or will they stop when they recognize the position they're in?  I guess they'll dance.  Young people do that no matter what their position.  Even Mohamed Atta was reportedly seen at a strip club the night or so before.   > (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.   Just a couple of points here:  There are many different kinds of WMDs, some much more portable and storeable than others.  As Sept 11 demonstrated, even conventional things like airliners can be used.  The other point is that in the longer term there are all kinds of possibilities.  What Bush may be starting could, I believe, last a very long time, indeed plenty of time to develop all kinds of small portable horrors.  The Americans have it right.  We are into a very different kind of war, one in which the enemy is invisible, mobile, flexible and, as long as events continue on their present path, inexhaustible.   >   > (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).   Interesting point, Keith.  While I don't necessarily agree with the genetic programming bit, I would agree that Saddam Husain must at times wish that the US had been successful in finding bin Laden and the Mullah Omar.   > (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 problem is how much power the leadership actually has.  Arafat is a prime example of helplessness at the nominal top.  What little I've read of several Middle Eastern governments suggests that they maintain their positions by trying to keep the lid on a bubbling cauldron.  I think this is a point you make re Saudi Arabia and I've read recently that the situation in Egypt is similar.  It would seem that you have two kinds of power in the Middle East, a repressive vertical power that tries to maintain control from the top, and a stimulative, belligerent power that cuts through societies horizontally and that responds to people like bin Laden.   I believe that the latter is gaining momentum, and therein lies the danger.   > 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.   I think the heading appropriate.  God help us if Saddam Husain achieves martyrdom!   Ed