In one of my classes on Friday, the professor started with a discussion
of postmodernism. He defined it as roughly the blurring and breaking of
categories. He noted that the attacks breached the boundaries of the
US. The boundaries of the US were never before considered vulnerable.
Now our concept of national boundaries is blurred. Thus, the attack is
postmodern.
"Destabilization" is the word of the day, at least on the Sunday talk
shows that I watched. The military goal of the United States is to
destroy terrorist cells, and destabilize the nation-states that harbor
them. (The US's flawed domestic counterterrorism efforts are not
considered harboring terrorism.) Commentators say that this will take
months. There will be no traditional battles, only skirmishes followed
by long pauses followed by more skirmishes. US Politicians claim that
there will be an "end" to the new war on terrorism. It will not be like
the war on drugs, the war on cancer, the war on inflation, or the war
on poverty. Can such assurances be free of mendacity, however? Has the
military establishment suddenly dropped the phrase "mission creep" from
its vocabulary?
Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican of Nebraska) discussed the possibility
that a military attack on Afghanistan could destabilize Pakistan and
other Islamic nations with radical Islamic movements (implying Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and others). The entire region could be
destabilized. He hoped this wouldn't happen. Senator Joseph Biden
(Democrat of Delaware) figured that if we could "take out" Afghanistan,
Iraq, and the terror networks, then we would be safe. If only the world
was subject to such reductionism. You cannot simply remove two
governments without ramifications.
Senator Biden was optimistic that Muslim governments will join the
coalition against terrorism because they are worried about their own
stability. He failed to address the quandary facing the US. If militant
Islamic movements gain democratic majoritarian support in some
countries, democracy could support terrorism. Should the US support
democracy or fight radical Islamism? Do we fallaciously consider
radical Islam and terrorism to be in the same category?
My first question to pen-l'ers, then, is what is going on here at an
abstract level? Is the nation-state system crumbling away under the
force of terrorism? Is there a profound lack of understanding between
West and East? Is there a real conflict over Israel and Palestine, or
is it an excuse to fight over larger issues? Is the Muslim world angry
with the West for globalization? Does globalization even affect the
Arab world in the same way as it does China, India, South America,
Africa, and Russia? Why are they fighting globalization with terrorism
when other affected countries do not? Is the Muslim world so angry with
the US for supporting Israel that they would support such attacks? Is
their anger wholely a relic of anti-Semitism?
Finally, does the United States risk destabilization at home if this
"war" does not go well?
Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
