Marvin Gandall wrote:
The domino theory is not
new - it has been the justification for every US intervention from the
Bolshevik Revolution on - and Kissinger's is simply the latest variant of
it. But at some point, if the conflict on balance becomes a losing one, a
deal must be struck with the enemy, the consequences be damned. That's
the
case in both class and international conflicts, where the outcome is
predicated less on what the contending parties want than by the
relationship
of forces which is largely outside their control.
clip
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph Johansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] war is over
<It is worth noting that, two days before Rich’s column, the Washington
Post published an op-ed column by former Nixon secretary of state Henry
Kissinger, for decades one of the most ruthless and cynical strategists
for American imperialism. Kissinger wrote: “Because of the long reach of
the Islamist challenge, the outcome in Iraq will have an even deeper
significance than that in Vietnam. If a Taliban-type government or a
fundamentalist radical state were to emerge in Baghdad or any part of
Iraq, shock waves would ripple through the Islamic world. Radical forces
in Islamic countries or Islamic minorities in non-Islamic states would
be emboldened in their attacks on existing governments. The safety and
internal stability of all societies within reach of militant Islam would
be imperiled. This is why many opponents of the decision to start the
war agree with the proposition that a catastrophic outcome would have
grave global consequences—a fundamental difference from the Vietnam
debate.”
Another important difference between the Iraq and Vietnam wars is that
the war this time is seen in terms of religious differences. The Muslims
comprise1/5 of the world's population, 80% of whom are Sunnis. As the
West has followed Bush in declaring a "war on terror", where the current
clash is seen principally according to the myth in terms of Christian
culture vs Islamic culture, called a "clash of civilizations" by Samuel
Huntington, possibly the most prominent limner of the larger
contemporary cultural picture and its relationship to sound governing,
whose works are read and heeded widely by the rulers of the earth and
their coterie, and whose scarcely veiled codifications of the array of
forces on the geopolitical landscape are carefully parsed. In the 1970s
his assault was on "too much democracy" (and we now have less), more
recently it's against the immigrant, splitting the Anglo-Saxon nation in
two, bringing their "lack of ambition" and "acceptance of poverty as a
virtue necessary for entry into heaven", the other-culturely coming into
the US from all directions, especially from the south.
In today's paper there is news again of the US military training the
Philippine and Indonesian armies in "anti-terrorism tactics", and the
article dwells on the Muslim forces in the area, in the Philippines but
also in the bombing in Bali - tying events there to the Muslims in the
Middle East. The tacit assumption of affinity is of course
religion-based and will pass unnoticed in the US press, as will racial
profiling.
Here in Hawaii, my home for the past twelve years, little noted by
others to my knowledge we have something called the Asia-Pacific Center
for Security Studies, set up in 1995 and based at the University of
Hawaii in Honolulu. Looking through the alumni files, I notice that the
graduates of this academy are almost without exception rear admirals,
major generals, lieutenant colonels, captains, with the rare professor,
ambassador or other civilian. They hail from all over Asia, from
Mongolia to Singapore, from Madagascar to Korea to Bangladesh to the
Philippines to Indonesia, most countries predominantly Muslim, and more
recently (2004) from Mexico and Uruguay as well.
In their mission statement they say it is a "research center with a
non-warfighting mission to enhance Asia-Pacific security cooperation
through programs of executive education, professional exchange and
policy relevant research.... The Center provides a focal point where
national officials, decision makers and policy makers can gather to
exchange ideas, explore pressing issues and achieve a greater
understanding of the challenges that shape the security environment of
the Asia-Pacific region. As well, the Center gives attention to the
increasingly complex interrelationships of military, economic, political
and diplomatic policies relevant to regional security issues through its
three academic components: The College of Security Studies, Research and
Publications programs, and Conference programs."
Maybe for all I know it is a benign place for military officials to meet
and fraternize (there is the rare woman listed) and discuss peacekeeping
and other business matters at the beach and not at all what it calls to
my mind, the School of the Americas of the Pacific. I have asked around
and so far I have no information other than what's on their web page at
*http://tinyurl.com/cfkha.* I see behind its creation and federal
funding Hawaii's venerable senior Senator Daniel Inouye, who for years
has been junketing about the Pacific rim arm in arm with his long time
buddy Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, pursuing US and their own interests.
So, you know, it's certainly not going to be, must not be over, as
Kissinger reminds us, at the peril of the "safety and stability of all
societies within reach of militant Islam...."
Ralph
