I don't think that we need to debate Hitchens foolishness here. > Hitchens asks: "But must one not also measure intention and motive?" > > the american intention and motive is revealed post facto in its shutting down > an investigation of the consequences of the bombing. this is what turned the > us bombing into a state terrorist act, whatever the initial intention and > motive. plus, hitchens refuses to understand how important chomsky's point was > at the time that it was made: after the bombings, many were ready to take > quick and massive revenge, and chomsky was rightly warning us off escalating > the cycle of unjustifiable violence. > > More importantly, Hitchens writes: "In my version, then as now, one confronts > an enemy who wishes ill to our society, and to his own (if impermeable > religious despotism is considered an ill). In Chomsky�s reading, one must > learn to sift through the inevitable propaganda and emotion resulting from > the September 11 attacks, and lend an ear to the suppressed and distorted > cry for help that comes, not from the victims, but from the perpetrators. I > have already said how distasteful I find this attitude." > > hitchens underestimates the depth of popular support in the arab world for > strikes against symbols of US military and economic power. it is in fact quite > disturbing to recognize that such attacks could have some substantial measure > of support or at least not motivate the strongest possible repudiation? Should > we turn a deaf ear to this? As an American, I would certainly like to. > > moreover, given the regimes that the US supports, the only forms of > opposition that are going to survive on such politically parched land are the > egyptian jehadi and Al-Quaeda--that is, clandestine, hierarchical, > militaristic, and thoroughly hideous organizations. With that as the only > form of organized dissent in tact, people have nothing else to rally around. > > If the US does not allow democratic movements to develop in the region which > will fight against the terms of trade turning against the raw materials > exporters and for redistribution of the wealth in the region as a whole, > people will indeed join or become fellow travellers of these terrorist > organizations. > > With such popular support for such hideous groupings, the pro US govts will > find that they cannot take too aggressive police action without risking their > own toppling. At this point, this is a political reality even if hitchens would > like to ignore it. > > Look at what is happening in Pakistan. many people (the young in particular) > think Osama bin Laden will deliver the wealth of the Muslim world to them. > They have lost hope in the US; they fought and died for the US, and didn't > even get a Marshall Plan. They were abandoned. Now the Pakistani govt has no > legitimacy to do the civilized thing of bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. > Whose fault is this? > > The problem will never be solved unless the US learns to live with regimes > which due to their suspectibility to democratic pressures do not willingly > create ever more adverse terms of trade by ramping up oil production during a > US recession because the elites derive more money from Wall Street than the > sale of oil. The US govt has to learn to live with democratic regimes that may > not always channel massive dollar (or EURO!) reserves in a manner that suits > it. Only such democratic Arab and Central Asian govts--representing the people > who circulate in the region as a whole; the Arab people obviously do not > respect the lines in the sand--will be able to aggressively root out clerical > fascists without risking their own overthrow. > > It is impossible to explain what transpired on 9/11 or the present > difficulties in annihilating clerical fascists without putting US policy at > the center of the picture. Does Hitchens deny this? > > If only Eqbal Ahmad were here to give Hitchens the pillorying that he so > richly deserves. > > Rakesh > > ps people are wondering what's up with hitchens. fame once achieved is hard to > let go of. once dennis miller called hitchens the smartest man in america on > monday night football, hitchens wasn't going to say anything to jeopardize his > standing among such television celebrities. herman and chomsky understand the > confines which hitchens has accepted in his faustian bargain; thus hitchens > cannot but engage in mad diatribes against them. > > >
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
