The premise of a democracy is that we are the government and the government is us.

I believe that shutting off my brain and *not* questioning our course of action in this and any other thing would be phenomenally irresponsible and un-patriotic and refusing to take my share of the burden that one accepts by living in a democracy.

And, sigh, I predict that you will respond that we are not a democracy, we are a republic.

Quoth richt:

"It's easy to cry "foul" at every action America is now taking or will take. But it's harder to give useful advice. What's yours? (And not just, "I know what I wouldn't do".) I've been asking this question of lots of people, and they all say "I don't know", in one way or another. So is that the answer? Change our ways to act more terrorist-friendly, then hope that there are no more terrorist attacks?"

First, I'll try to link you to an article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran203.html

My only concrete answer as to what we should do now is "be careful, be aware, look before we leap". It can't hurt.

I think my problem with rehashing our past foreign policy in the Middle East now that it is pointless. It's TOO LATE to repair the damage. It's like 1933 was TOO LATE to repair the damage done by the Treaty of Versailles in Germany. The damage is done. The results are in. No appeasement was sufficient to mitigate the hate Germany felt for the Allies of WWI, and it looks like no appeasement will be sufficient to mitigate that the terrorists and their supporters feel for us now. We're facing an 80-year-old festering wound over there inflicted by our long dead progenitors. Unfortunately, either cauterizing or amputation is the only solution left. Once that's done, we have to make damned sure that the rehad program is done right. We did a good thing with Germany and Japan after WWII. I hope we've got the courage and foresight to do some good after this Crisis...if we survive it victorious, that is.


_________________
Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. John Donne

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lis '54 on 2001-10-30 11:52 ]</font>

I don't see why efforts to round up terrorists in the USA can't be done independently from miliary actions outside the U.S. That is, can't we go after terrorists in Berwyn at the same time as we take steps against those in Afghanistan?

That said, I have to agree with Angeli that the US bombing campaign is bad policy.

The question is how do you beat these guys? The bombing campaign seems poorly thought out. In the Gulf War we did not begin bombing until we had troops there. When it stopped we invaded. That is, there was a followup plan for when the bombing ended.

In this conflict there is no followup plan for when the bombing ends. So I guess we'll just keep on bombing, what else can we do? I fear it is wishful thinking that dropping bombs is going to bring the Taliban to its knees. Since it was not surprising that the US chose to bomb, it is reasonable to believe that bin Laden expected this response, and went ahead with 911 anyways. That is, it is what he *wants* the US to do. Dropping bombs will likely inflame Muslim opinion against the US, which I would think is bin Laden's objective. Another key objective, it seems to me, would be to get the Americans to put troops into Pakistan, and thus possibly destablize the country and expand the war. Hence the Taliban calls for sending 100,000 American troops to fight with them.

As I have written above, a better policy IMHO would have been to take domestic steps to signal our resolve (declaring war, increasing taxes). Military actions would be limited right now to securing a "beachhead" in Northern Alliance-controlled territory before winter, with only the minimal air support needed to secure our position. Our next goal would be to make prearations for bringing in substantial reinforcements next spring. By acquiring airlift capacity and drafting youth over the winter we would be signaling our intention to wage large-scale war *without* putting troops on Pakistani soil.

Our strategy should be always to *not* do what our enemy wants us to do.

One possible course of action was suggested by Congressman Ron Paul (of Texas) -- that the US government issue letters of marque and reprisal against at least bin Laden. This has the effect of declaring "open season" on him. Add to that a bounty for his death or capture. Make the bounty fund something that anyone can contribute to -- how many minutes before we have a multi-billion dollar price on his head?

Let the market go to work. Afghanistanis are not known for their undying allegiance to any one leader. How long would he last? As an added benefit, he will not be seen as a martyr to US aggression.

Repeat as necessary until terrorism is no longer a viable tactic.

On 2001-10-30 13:10, Justin '77 wrote:
Add to that a bounty for his death or capture....how many minutes before we have a multi-billion dollar price on his head?

one problem: i'm not sure i want the folks who are capable of delivering bin laden's head to receive a cash infusion of multiple billions of dollars.


TK

TrollKing is...
"not sure i want the folks who are capable of delivering bin laden's head to receive a cash infusion of multiple billions of dollars."

Hence the "repeat as needed".

Well, I'm actually replying from work. The "quote" thing doesn't seem to work, so I'll try it with italics:

Well, richt, I'm sorry you found what I said insulting. I get snippy when people start telling me what I think instead of responding to what I say. Which you are still doing and which I find phenomenally insulting myself.
But lets call pax.

You can call me "Rich".

Communication is a weird thing. I actually thought the same about you. Well, I'm sorry too, then. I've spewed out enough defensive comments, and now I'm back in mellow mode. It's hard to respond to what someone says sometimes, without guessing at what they think. We were being snippy for the same reason. I'm over it. "Pax".


Yeah, I see what you mean about Big Picture versus small truths. But I disagree with you about the small truths also. Not because I think we should lie down and let people kill us. Because that would be stupid too, indeed, stupider. But I think we are making a large tactical error. I don't know how large.

Now I'm not an expert on the Islamic world and it might make you feel better to know that I would like to be wrong. I don't think I am wrong. But I don't have all the information. I do have enough information that this all looks the equivalent of bombing Peoria when you're (present tense) being attacked by St. Louis.

I think you have made a good case for why you disagree with our present attacks on Afghanistan, why it is a tactical error. I see what you're saying (I think). But for my part, I still think we're doing the right thing by going into the geographic terrorist stronghold. They may be nimble, but there's still enough of their organization (people and infrastructure) sitting there that we should capture/destroy.


But what makes me really uncomfortable with your posts is an insistance that I sense that we should all shut off our brains and fall in lock step behind a massive ground war whether its a bad idea or not, because any dissent means "divided we fall". Millions on the Right are howling this and it freaks me right out. After all, if that's the case, what makes us different from the Taliban? Our SUVs? Why is it patriotic to be a lemming? Why is it treason to say a course of action is stupid when its stupid?


Fair comments, and I think they get at the root of why we were arguing. It might help to say that I am also against the lock-step, "United We Stand", any-bomb-is-a-good-bomb mentality. I don't really think we should shut off our brains (how can you, anyway?). What I trying to say (I keep whittling it down each time I post) is that we should stick to one question at a time, and not distract from the answer by pointing at everything all at once. In other words, to remain focused. Maybe that's what I really meant: let's stay focused. If going in to Afghanistan was the plan, to attack terrorist bases, then let's do that, and not answer it by saying "America has been the imperial aggressor in the Arab world for years". I hope I am getting my meaning across. Of course I think, and I care, and I hope and believe others do as well. I just don't want to think and care about EVERYTHING every time there is a specific issue at hand, because it tends to paralyze more than enable a proper response.

Nor do I have a problem with someone saying that a course of action is stupid. (Although it annoys me to the extent that no alternative course of action is offered.) I do think that America is always driven by consensus opinion, but the last time I used the word "consensus" in a post, it was perceived as encouraging lack of tolerance of other opinions. I only mean that if 90% of Americans support an action, that the other 10% shouldn't necessarily be the ones whose advice is followed. If they can persuade others, more power to them, and then it won't be 90% anymore.

About the media: yeah, I know what you mean. I also know that the policy of the Clinton Administration was to contain these little "teacup wars" and that this involved making sure Americans knew as little as possible about them. I don't know to what extent the collusion on the part of the American media conglomerates was deliberate or coincidental. I do know it effectively kept a lot of people in ignorance of a lot of stuff that has been going on for years.

And I have always disagreed with the prevailing wisdom that Americans just don't care. Most Americans would have cared all along if they knew the ramificatons. It's the job of people like me to explain why they ought to care.

I agree with all this as well. They ought to care, but somehow I always felt "they" don't. I felt this when I lived in Europe for 10 years. Also, I think that there IS lots of info, but no one knows how to tell from a "wacky internet conspiracy theory", let alone from a major media article or TV show, what is true and what is not.

And as far as religion is concerned, I think Christianity is as important in the US as Islam is in the Arab world. You can't really understand a lot of the things we do without understanding that. (this confuses most Europeans, for whom religion doesn't matter that much.)

We also have a large secular counter-tradition that our Constitution is founded upon. But this secular/Christian thing has been a constant source of tension throughout American history. Even when we reject the religious element, we aren't diminishing its importance. We bounce back and forth in extremes, from Literal Interpretation of the Bible to God is Dead. No in betweens. No balance.

I think the pendulum is swinging towards more religion in public life, especially Christianity, entering the 4T. That seems evident. (I also think that Europeans are indeed plenty religious, but the tradition is stable there, and there are not the loud U.S.-style debates over certain issues.) Since there is still a secular/religious tension in the U.S., as you say, I do not think that this translates into the same level of religious fervor of poorer Islamic countries.

I think there is ground between literal (mis)interpretation of the Bible, and total atheism (which works fine for me, but does not give much meaning to life, and people seem to require that). I think that the vast majority of Americans already are somewhere in the middle of these poles, I don't think we bounce back all the way from one extreme to the other. Although, if you believe something, you should believe it all the way.

For my part, I used to be an atheist, am now an agnostic, and have recently been exposed to a religion I will not name, that has a great explanation of the meaning of life.

On 2001-10-30 13:47, Justin '77 wrote:
TrollKing is...
"not sure i want the folks who are capable of delivering bin laden's head to receive a cash infusion of multiple billions of dollars."

Hence the "repeat as needed".

I think what TK is trying to say, Justin, is that the people most in a position to turn in Bin Laden (dead or alive) are terrorists themselves, since birds of a feather do tend to flock together. If we were to place a multi-billion dollar bounty on OBL's head, who's to say that the bounty wouldn't end up financing additional, even more devastating, attacks against America? With one hundred billion dollars in cash, how difficult would it be for a terrorist to purchase a black-market Soviet nuke, smuggle it into the U.S. and detonate it in a major city? Not very, I'm afraid.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2001-10-30 14:58 ]</font>

On 2001-10-21 17:25, granger wrote:
I beleive that there is a core of boomers who saw the sixties, but where a step removedfrom the essense of participation and have been ready for a return to values. If any momentum builds amongst youth culture and Gen X acceptance of a turning, then 911 will be the day we all remember as the catalyst. So what does this foretell.....?

Youth culture...Gen X acceptance...hmm. The Turning waits. Not to forget to mention I've always said the Boomers would bring it on. -Craig

On 2001-10-21 17:54, Susan Brombacher wrote:

No, no, no! That's not it at all. Of course Xers aren't advocating white gloves, finger bowls, hats in public and using the right fork at a debutante's ball. Nor are they advocating primpy, correct behavior in all situations or not having sex before marriage. What they ARE doing is showing, by example, how Americans can be decent and kind to each other, and help each other, rather than the everyone-out-for-himself greed and selfishness that was so pervasive before 911. You actually haven't noticed there isn't much interest in that anymore, and that the people who do it are simply ignored or squashed down? You haven't seen an increase in neighborliness and general friendliness, and less rudeness and meanness? And you can't be serious if you mean you PREFER rudeness and mean-spiritness to helpfulness and friendliness. Then again, maybe you do.

No I don't prefer rudeness and mean-spiritedness to helpfulness and friendliness. But Robert's suggestion of manners in the sense you don't think he means brought to mind well...something that Xers aren't really doing. The word "manners" brought up a reimplementation of manners & morals just like S&H write about in their worst predictions...I don't recall S&H writing ANYWHERE about people being nicer during the 4T in fact. They only predict that people will be less tolerant, speak out against "deviance", be more patriotic, be more disciplined, be more Victorian and do their duty. And also be more serious, care about frivolous or trivial things less and be unamused watching the flagpole sitters, reject nineties pop culture, feel a sense of urgency, be scared, look towards fixing problems. nothing in there about niceness. The manners & prudence thing, i HAVEN'T seen. It all depends on what Bill Strauss meant by manners in his original post

-Craig

On 2001-10-30 14:54, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

I think what TK is trying to say....

don't speak for me, kevin parker.





ok, just kidding. actually kevin nailed exactly what i was trying to say on the head. and i don't think "repeat as needed" would solve the escalation of threat.

thanks, kevin.


TK

On 2001-10-20 22:10, madscientist wrote:
Both S&H and Brian are totall correct. Your worldview is just too fragmented to see it.

Sorry, but I live in a world where a person can not be in two places at the same time. A world where 1+1=3 and 1+1=4 can not both be correct if 3 =/ 4. If one person says Heroes don't question or object to the system and will follow the old social rules instead, and another says Heroes do, they cannot both be 100% correct. One of them has gotta be wrong or the other...so which is it going to be?
-Craig

On 2001-10-30 15:24, Craig '84 wrote:

Sorry, but I live in a world where a person can not be in two places at the same time. A world where 1+1=3 and 1+1=4 can not both be correct if 3 =/ 4. If one person says Heroes don't question or object to the system and will follow the old social rules instead, and another says Heroes do, they cannot both be 100% correct. One of them has gotta be wrong or the other...so which is it going to be?
-Craig

Where did S&H ever say that Millies will follow the old social rules? Actually, they said that Millennials will REDEFINE social rules, and give their stamp on what is right and what is wrong.

On 2001-10-21 17:25, granger wrote:
I beleive that there is a core of boomers who saw the sixties, but where a step removedfrom the essense of participation and have been ready for a return to values.

The sixties WERE a return to values: humanitarian values, concern for the Earth, concern for the victims of racism, poverty, and all forms of oppression.

But for my part, I still think we're doing the right thing by going into the geographic terrorist stronghold. They may be nimble, but there's still enough of their organization (people and infrastructure) sitting there that we should capture/destroy.

Yeah ... maybe. I just have this uncomfortable feeling that bin Laden expected us to do this, and that we're playing into his hands.

This is just my speculation on what I would do if I were him, and it's far from perfect because I have way way way too little information. But if I were an international terrorist mastermind, this is what I would do. This is science fiction. I am making all of this up! I haven't much clue, just a guess or two.

In the Arab world there are two forces in tension, what someone called the Lexus and the Olive Tree. The Global economy versus homegrown Islamic values. In fact this isn't just in the Islamic world. It's everywhere. But it's particularly pronounced there because the economy has been pretty bad and there have been a number of wars running through the region.

On the one hand you have an older generation that has grown up feeling like their culture has been systematicly destroyed by the West and by pro-Western and often corrupt governments like that of the Shah of Iran. (Silent and Boom?)

On the other hand you have a middle generation, say our age, who wants their cell phones and dvds, who grew up under the repressive Islamic regimes in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc (Xers?). They have been paying massive bribes for the priviledge of packing four to a trunk and being driven across Central Asia to Budapest where they pursue opportunities in the dishwashing and garbage collecting fields.

Then you have a young, newly idealistic (Millennial?) generation who faces few prospects and who are outraged by growing up in the rubble of the West Bank, Kabul, Baghdad. They are particularily aware of things like the way we left the Kurdish uprisers to be slaughtered by Hussain, the way infants are dying in Iraq because of the trade embargo, the way the EU manages to jiggle its immigration and refugee rules so that Afghani women get sent back to Taliban rule.

But this younger generation is perhaps also enamored of Big Macs, blue jeans and Jean Claude Van Damme movies. So maybe on their own they might not be moved to throw their young, hopeful bodies in front of a speeding truck in the name of Islam. They want peace and oppertunity. They want their MTV.

I think bin Laden (Boomer that he is) is making a bid for the hearts and minds of these young people. He wants to raise an army of Muslim youth kamakaze warriors, who "look forward to dying the way we look forward to living." And then he wants to mobilize them into an international terrorist force.

and most of all ... he wants them to reject Western culture and overthrow the Western leaning moderate Islamic governments! He wants his new generation to build his paradise on earth with their bodies.

He already did well with one thing: the 911 attacks showed imagination and sheer beauty of execution that eclipses anything Hollywood ever dreamed of. That's got to appeal to 19 year olds out there.

How well is he succeeding? Well, to know that I'd have to know a whole lot more about Islamic youth culture than I currently do.

Hence the need for some understanding and empathy, pronto and big time!

I also think that he could have easily predicted our military response. We are doing exactly what we could be expected to do; ie what we did in Kosovo.

And we know he's trying to spin this as America attacks the Islamic world. We've seen that on TV, right? It's not a mystery.

And he had plenty of time to plan this situation and get his key people and materiel out of the line of fire well before the bombing ever started. (and hang the Taliban out to dry in the name of the Greater Islamic Good. Almost makes you feel sorry for them doesn't it?)

He had plenty of time even after Sept 11. He had an entire week.

He also has a lot of money. This opens many doors for him that may not be readily apparent to us.

So my question is: is what we're achieving in this attack on Afghanistan better than what bin Laden is achieving?

I don't have enough information to even start answering this question.

This makes me nuts.

HTH
a



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2001-10-30 21:26 ]</font>

A sharp negative turn in America's perception of immigration (and, in time, of potential immigrants' perceptions of America)--and of "globalism" more generally. Recall the old Wired magazine forecast that "open:good; closed:bad" was a permanent attitude. Will our society now move toward "closed:good; open:bad"? Will we see a move toward nativism in our culture and treatment of foreign-born Americans, and toward a sort of do-it-elsewhere-but-not-here isolationism in foreign policy? What will "Globalism"mean now? Will people begin fearing it, not merely as a possible threat to jobs, but for how it might make fanatics out of people halfway around the world? The nativist right could easily join the anachist (anti-IMF) left on this one.

Plain Dealer Oct 30, 2001 Page A1
BUSH ORDERS TIGHTER CONTROL ON VISAS

Hold the phone, folks, let's go back about 2-3 pages here. I am still reeling from reading that link furnished by Justin77 (thanks, btw). Did everyone here involved read that Sobran column called Too Late? If not, you all should. Wow, talk about simultaneous deja vu with the conversation here, or something like that!

Rich, this latest ongoing posting here has got to be some of your best of yours that I've read. I say that because I deeply respect where you are coming from, even though my thoughts are much more in line with Angeli's and Justin 77's.

Angeli, no doubt about it, you are speaking to me. You've articulated alot of what I've been pondering. I'd love to know more of your thoughts concerning bin Laden's Saudi connection you previously mentioned, even though you may not have a fer-sure handle on it all.

*IF* 911 was the catalyst, and we are indeed in the 4T, the time between now and the regeneracy, and definitely between now and the climax is a time for hashing out what we as a people want to stand for in this time. What values, what problems, what solutions. We are nowhere near that point. How we do that will have to be to have divergent viewpoints and beliefs. There's going to be passion involved, it's a Boomer vision-thing being decided upon, after all.

I suspect it will be much harder on those who want to approach this linearly. Those willing to question at will may be unconciously getting the flack for seeming unwittingly eager to open the bag of worms that the Unravelling used but didn't really address efficiently. We're all weary. Nothing like a Crisis to get to the gist of things.

I was just a kid during the first decade of the last Crisis. But, certain important points still got communicated to me in no uncertain terms. There was alot of ambiguity, befuddledness, bewilderment, disillusionment during that first decade. People sought to trust some kind of gut instinct or intuitive. The first deciding result was choosing FDR, and then continuing to choose him. Even when he wasn't getting results. But, the choices were hard fought. Lots of divergence, the passions were there.

This doesn't happen overnight. But it has to happen. And, I don't even see it anywhere on radar. I spent a long time on Sobran's website, http://www.sobran.com/columns/index.shtml, and this guy is sensing this same stuff sans T4T theory, but like he knows we aren't where we need to be, like something's wrong with the picture. Patriotism or Nationalism? was a great read. Thanks again, Justin.

These three paragraphs from Sobran's Too Late? haunt me, particularly the very first sentence:

The real irony of the situation is that Osama bin Laden is essentially demanding that we live by our own original principles. Not that he knows or cares a whit for constitutional government, the counsel of the Founding Fathers, and suchlike infidel malarkey; but his demand for American withdrawal from the Middle East would never have been necessary if we had retained the modest "republican form of government" that was bequeathed to us. Instead the United States has become a global empire.

And of course people like me are "anti-American" for preferring the old constitutional republic we?ve abandoned. And now, in order to defeat bin Laden, we are moving, and moving rapidly, even further away from a limited, decentralized, constitutional system. By executive order, President Bush has created a second Department of Defense ? called the Office of Homeland Security ? to do what the first Department of Defense was supposed to do, but has failed to do. And in today?s parlance, a "patriot" is an American who favors this unconstitutional expansion of government power.

We are told that bin Laden hates freedom and democracy. But he didn?t ask us to ignore the Bill of Rights, and specifically the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; our own government, with popular support, has been doing that on its own initiative. It?s been doing it for a long time, but in wartime the process accelerates.

The isolationist overtones will bother many, and perhaps we cannot ever go back to the Founding Fathers' isolationist view, but are we looking at the forest, or the trees? Or, to borrow from both Sobran essays, are we working so hard to provide a great living for our family that we've lost (contact with) them? Is it worth the new normalcy?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-10-30 23:18 ]</font>

I can second Barbara?s and Justin?s approval of the Sobran columns. The real irony of the situation is that Osama bin Laden is essentially demanding that we live by our own original principles. Not that he knows or cares a whit for constitutional government, the counsel of the Founding Fathers, and suchlike infidel malarkey; but his demand for American withdrawal from the Middle East would never have been necessary if we had retained the modest "republican form of government" that was bequeathed to us. Instead the United States has become a global empire.

I might nit-pick. No, bin-Ladin is not using our own language and values against us. He prefers to use heretical Islamic values to reach his desired audience. However, the moderate Arab voices are beginning to use secular western values in an attempt balance international politics. If Dubya and Blair continue to use high principles to justify use of force, we should expect demands that we live up to our alleged principles.

Shortly before September 11, there was a conference on human rights. The Arab representatives attempted to put Israel?s treatment of the Palestinians on the agenda. The US delegation walked out. Apparently, the idea the Palestinians have rights to was too radical. El-Ahram is starting to call for an international conference on terrorism. What, exactly, is terrorism? When a state sponsors terrorism, according to the Dubya Doctrine, the state loses sovereignty, and it is permissible to use violence against that state. The US gives military aid to Israel, including artillery pieces used to shell civilian population centers. According to the Dubya Doctrine, as the US supports a terrorist organization, the State of Israel, is it thus permissible to attack US civilian population centers? (The US created bin Ladin?s organization to fight the Soviets, was the single largest source of foreign aid to the Taliban, as is the major supplier of aid to Israel. Clearly the Dubya Doctrine makes us fair game for attack by any nation that loves freedom and world peace?)

Anyway, if we are going to fight a war on terrorism, might it be prudent to precisely define the word ?terrorism?? My first attempt is ?large scale use of lethal force against civilians to achieve political ends.? I?m open to alternate definitions. I?m open to word by word challenges to the above. If an attack only kills a few, it is not a terrorist act? If the force is not lethal, it is more permissible? If the target is military (say, the USS Cole) is it not terrorist? Thus, the above definition is likely narrower than it ought to be. Still, it seems easier to cross out words than insert them.

One Arab concern is a missing word. US policy, from an Arab perspective, seems to consider an act terrorist only if targeted against Caucasians. It is perfectly OK to bomb Palestinians and Afghans, but any attack against a white person is ?terrorist,? thus justifying the death of massive numbers of people with darker skin color. In the Balkans, NATO acted to defend Catholics from Orthodox crimes against humanity, while preventing the Arab states from sending peacekeeping forces in to protect Muslims from similar aggression. I don?t believe recent Administrations deliberately, consciously and maliciously decided upon racist foreign policy. However, an Arab perception that the US has an actively racist foreign policy is entirely understandable.

Mind you, I believe defining the conflict as a battle over what tactics are allowed in battle is shallow. The Dubya Doctrine is in large part an attempt to keep US policy in the Middle East off the table. An attempt to firmly define the word ?terrorism? and apply said definition to Israel puts US policy in the Middle East back on the table.

How does the right of a government to fight terror interact with other rights? El-Ahram mentioned the right of a native people to rebel against invaders. One might also propose a right of colonial people to rebel against their imperial mother state. One might also suggest that heavily armed and armored soldiers surrounding towns have a right to defend themselves against children throwing rocks? If one gives governments an absolute power to fight terror, to what extent does this assume that no injustice exists sufficient to justify rebellion? If injustice exists sufficient that children are attacking soldiers with stones, does anyone think the children will care what a conference of learned diplomats have to say?

If the battle is over terrorism, either the word or the acts, we might still be engaged in third turning police actions. We are simply trying to use brute force to maintain the current world order. On the other hand, if we define precisely what a terrorist act is, and precisely how sovereign nations are allowed to respond, we might be redefining a new world order. This is a baby step towards a fourth turning, towards globalism, even if the underlying issues behind various conflicts are addressed only minimally.

The last question is on what level does the definition of ?terrorist? really matter? International law? Does Dubya really have the power to void national sovereignty of a nation, without presenting evidence before any internationally recognized court, if the nation refuses to hand over an accused terrorist? Popular support? Does the definition have to be useful in raising Dubya?s popularity in the polls and the morale of the military? Historical precedent? Does the definition have to be consistent with past US claims to sovereignty and international law? Continued stability? Can the US comfortably live if the new rules are applied to the US? Will the new rules bring peace, or will they demand a series of invasions of the entire Third World? Philosophical tradition? Would PhDs in philosophy be able to defend the Dubya Doctrine based on first principle or the works of Enlightenment philosophers? The Golden Rule? Those who have the gold make the rules? Do we really have enough gold to force the world to live by our rules?

What is terrorism? Is it a variation of pornography? One can?t define it precisely, but one recognizes it when one sees it? If so, do we want to allow governments to assume a power to terrorize when they think other governments are terrorizing? Is this the formula for peace?

In many (perhaps not all) fourth turnings, the poor outsiders sought increased power from the rich establishment. The poor outsiders, with hindsight, have generally been perceived as having just cause. The rich establishment is often perceived as attempting to maintain privilege and resist necessary progress. Is this perspective meaningful today?


_________________
We shall not have Freedom from Fear, everywhere in the world, while we forget the other three.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-10-31 08:52 ]</font>

I think defining terrorism begins with the derivation of the word. A just war is an attempt to stop injustice and oppression. Acceptable military means are those that overcome an enemy force without deliberately interfering with the population?s efforts to maintain their standard of living. The USA has been attacked with an obvious aim of spreading fear throughout the population. If American forces attack the Taliban (who, by the way, are a somewhat alien force in Afghanistan) with an attempt to force them to stop harboring terrorists, or to overthrow their rule, it?s not necessarily terrorism, justified or not. If they were to bomb the population in a deliberate attempt to terrify them, murder them, or make their lives harder, that would be terrorism. (I take on faith so far that this isn?t happening.) I suppose this definition requires discerning the intent of the perpetrator.
As I?ve said before, I think what we?re up against, if we?re serious about fighting terrorism as a practice, is the common ?feudal? concept of justice that says that if some of our people are attacked, justice requires that we attack the people of the attacker, whether or not they are individually implicated or even sympathetic. This can be seen in the war of ideas in which our enemies are saying that since we are attacking Muslims, we are attacking Islam ? attacking all Muslims. This feudal tribalism is extremely widespread and ingrained, and changing it is quite a formidable task. It?s worth doing, if we?re serious about it.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Carl Fitzpatrick on 2001-10-31 09:14 ]</font>

On 2001-10-31 07:59, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
I can second Barbara?s and Justin?s approval of the Sobran columns. The real irony of the situation is that Osama bin Laden is essentially demanding that we live by our own original principles. Not that he knows or cares a whit for constitutional government, the counsel of the Founding Fathers, and suchlike infidel malarkey; but his demand for American withdrawal from the Middle East would never have been necessary if we had retained the modest "republican form of government" that was bequeathed to us. Instead the United States has become a global empire.

I might nit-pick. No, bin-Ladin is not using our own language and values against us. He prefers to use heretical Islamic values to reach his desired audience. However, the moderate Arab voices are beginning to use secular western values in an attempt balance international politics. If Dubya and Blair continue to use high principles to justify use of force, we should expect demands that we live up to our alleged principles.

Exactly.

Shortly before September 11, there was a conference on human rights. The Arab representatives attempted to put Israel?s treatment of the Palestinians on the agenda. The US delegation walked out. Apparently, the idea the Palestinians have rights to was too radical. El-Ahram is starting to call for an international conference on terrorism. What, exactly, is terrorism? When a state sponsors terrorism, according to the Dubya Doctrine, the state loses sovereignty, and it is permissible to use violence against that state. The US gives military aid to Israel, including artillery pieces used to shell civilian population centers. According to the Dubya Doctrine, as the US supports a terrorist organization, the State of Israel, is it thus permissible to attack US civilian population centers? (The US created bin Ladin?s organization to fight the Soviets, was the single largest source of foreign aid to the Taliban, as is the major supplier of aid to Israel. Clearly the Dubya Doctrine makes us fair game for attack by any nation that loves freedom and world peace?)

Good questions.

Anyway, if we are going to fight a war on terrorism, might it be prudent to precisely define the word ?terrorism?? My first attempt is ?large scale use of lethal force against civilians to achieve political ends.? I?m open to alternate definitions. I?m open to word by word challenges to the above. If an attack only kills a few, it is not a terrorist act? If the force is not lethal, it is more permissible? If the target is military (say, the USS Cole) is it not terrorist? Thus, the above definition is likely narrower than it ought to be. Still, it seems easier to cross out words than insert them.

I mostly agree, but a terrorist act can be small, or large. If a carbomb kills 2 people, then that is still a terrorist act. As for military targets, a better word would be the way the Soviet Union defined terrorism, as military sabotage. Terrorist attacks should be made specific to civilians, IMNSHO. Also, the attacks to not need to be lethal, but it should be defined to mean an attack on humans. But can it be defined as attacks on infrastructure? If someone blasts an EMP weapon in NYC, is it a terrorist act? Such a weapon would not harm humans directly, but would destroy the electrical civilization existing in NYC.

One Arab concern is a missing word. US policy, from an Arab perspective, seems to consider an act terrorist only if targeted against Caucasians. It is perfectly OK to bomb Palestinians and Afghans, but any attack against a white person is ?terrorist,? thus justifying the death of massive numbers of people with darker skin color. In the Balkans, NATO acted to defend Catholics from Orthodox crimes against humanity, while preventing the Arab states from sending peacekeeping forces in to protect Muslims from similar aggression. I don?t believe recent Administrations deliberately, consciously and maliciously decided upon racist foreign policy. However, an Arab perception that the US has an actively racist foreign policy is entirely understandable.

True

Mind you, I believe defining the conflict as a battle over what tactics are allowed in battle is shallow. The Dubya Doctrine is in large part an attempt to keep US policy in the Middle East off the table. An attempt to firmly define the word ?terrorism? and apply said definition to Israel puts US policy in the Middle East back on the table.

How does the right of a government to fight terror interact with other rights? El-Ahram mentioned the right of a native people to rebel against invaders. One might also propose a right of colonial people to rebel against their imperial mother state. One might also suggest that heavily armed and armored soldiers surrounding towns have a right to defend themselves against children throwing rocks? If one gives governments an absolute power to fight terror, to what extent does this assume that no injustice exists sufficient to justify rebellion? If injustice exists sufficient that children are attacking soldiers with stones, does anyone think the children will care what a conference of learned diplomats have to say?

If the battle is over terrorism, either the word or the acts, we might still be engaged in third turning police actions. We are simply trying to use brute force to maintain the current world order. On the other hand, if we define precisely what a terrorist act is, and precisely how sovereign nations are allowed to respond, we might be redefining a new world order. This is a baby step towards a fourth turning, towards globalism, even if the underlying issues behind various conflicts are addressed only minimally.

The last question is on what level does the definition of ?terrorist? really matter? International law? Does Dubya really have the power to void national sovereignty of a nation, without presenting evidence before any internationally recognized court, if the nation refuses to hand over an accused terrorist? Popular support? Does the definition have to be useful in raising Dubya?s popularity in the polls and the morale of the military? Historical precedent? Does the definition have to be consistent with past US claims to sovereignty and international law? Continued stability? Can the US comfortably live if the new rules are applied to the US? Will the new rules bring peace, or will they demand a series of invasions of the entire Third World? Philosophical tradition? Would PhDs in philosophy be able to defend the Dubya Doctrine based on first principle or the works of Enlightenment philosophers? The Golden Rule? Those who have the gold make the rules? Do we really have enough gold to force the world to live by our rules?

What is terrorism? Is it a variation of pornography? One can?t define it precisely, but one recognizes it when one sees it? If so, do we want to allow governments to assume a power to terrorize when they think other governments are terrorizing? Is this the formula for peace?

In many (perhaps not all) fourth turnings, the poor outsiders sought increased power from the rich establishment. The poor outsiders, with hindsight, have generally been perceived as having just cause. The rich establishment is often perceived as attempting to maintain privilege and resist necessary progress. Is this perspective meaningful today?


_________________
We shall not have Freedom from Fear, everywhere in the world, while we forget the other three.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-10-31 08:52 ]</font>

Maybe we should start a 4T Think Tank.

Angeli,
I don't know if this need surprise you, but I have been thinking the same things you stated in this post, regarding generational motivation of Bin Laden. I think our earlier tussle was a problem in communication for about 80%, and real differences of about 20%. When we talk about all sides of the situation, we are in agreement. When I railed on about how despite all that, we still cannot overlook the need to respond physically however we can to the fact that we were attacked, and not do a half-assed job about it, then perhaps I came off as though that were 100% of my viewpoint.

I also think you have addressed an important question in all this with the following section. If this post had been made a week ago, I wouldn't have begun my chain of posts as a reaction to weaker posts by others who were basically saying "it's our own fault we got bombed, and now we're bad to attack the Afghani people". Talk about playing into Bin Laden's hands...

On 2001-10-30 21:06, angeli wrote:
How well is he succeeding? Well, to know that I'd have to know a whole lot more about Islamic youth culture than I currently do.

Hence the need for some understanding and empathy, pronto and big time!

I also think that he could have easily predicted our military response. We are doing exactly what we could be expected to do; ie what we did in Kosovo.

And we know he's trying to spin this as America attacks the Islamic world. We've seen that on TV, right? It's not a mystery.

And he had plenty of time to plan this situation and get his key people and materiel out of the line of fire well before the bombing ever started. (and hang the Taliban out to dry in the name of the Greater Islamic Good. Almost makes you feel sorry for them doesn't it?)

He had plenty of time even after Sept 11. He had an entire week.

He also has a lot of money. This opens many doors for him that may not be readily apparent to us.

So my question is: is what we're achieving in this attack on Afghanistan better than what bin Laden is achieving?

I don't have enough information to even start answering this question.

This makes me nuts.

Makes me nuts too. My only (small) comments. I think I resist the word "empathy", but not "understanding". I know I will not be able to feel like a young Arab man without considering myself evil, and I know too much about myself to call myself evil, more than the Arab knows. So I can't be "empathetic", but that's a semantic quibble which I may have wrong anyway.

I too think Bin Laden had plenty of time to be SEVERAL steps ahead of us. In fact, I am amazed that there were not additional attacks that day, or immediately in their wake. I also am extremely suspicious that the current Anthrax scare has nothing to do with his network, since it would have been so much smarter to spread the Anthrax a week or so BEFORE the Sept. 11 attacks, while no one was paying attention. By then, Congress et al would have been exposed. This makes it seem more like someone who got the idea AFTER the attacks; probably someone from the U.S.

On 2001-10-30 23:11, Barbara wrote:
...
Rich, this latest ongoing posting here has got to be some of your best of yours that I've read. I say that because I deeply respect where you are coming from, even though my thoughts are much more in line with Angeli's and Justin 77's.

Actually, I consider this my worst stuff! :smile: By that I mean, I may have now come off as adhering to an overall view that I don't really consider mine.

I prefer talking generations rather than what essentially boils down to political worldview, but it's hard not to join in.

[Angeli] And he had plenty of time to plan this situation and get his key people and materiel out of the line of fire well before the bombing ever started. (and hang the Taliban out to dry in the name of the Greater Islamic Good. Almost makes you feel sorry for them doesn't it?)

[Mike] Up to this point you have done a pretty good job of thinking like bin Laden (IMO). I think he is still in Afghanistan, however. There is no place better for bin Laden to be than Afghanistan. Remember he was booted out of Sudan, he can't go there. He'd be killed instantly in Iran, and almost certainly in Iraq too. Besides, Iraq can't protect him from an American assault. The Pakastanis would surrender him in a minute.

In Afghanistan he has friends and connections. Also it was there that he and his fellow holy warriors defeated one Great Satan in the 1980's. Only in Afghanistan does he have a chance of winning against another. He will make his stand there.

Don't feel sorry for the Taliban. With Bush in office the odds lean in their favor. I believe that bin Laden deliberately waited for Clinton to leave office before launching his attack. Clinton was just itching for a major conflict with somebody, and with the Republican hatred of the man, you know they would be criticizing him for being too soft no matter how much force he used.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2001-10-31 11:19 ]</font>

On 2001-10-31 09:22, richt wrote:

On 2001-10-30 23:11, Barbara wrote:
...
Rich, this latest ongoing posting here has got to be some of your best of yours that I've read. I say that because I deeply respect where you are coming from, even though my thoughts are much more in line with Angeli's and Justin 77's.

Actually, I consider this my worst stuff! :smile: By that I mean, I may have now come off as adhering to an overall view that I don't really consider mine.

I prefer talking generations rather than what essentially boils down to political worldview, but it's hard not to join in.

You like talking the generations more than the turnings? Yes, it's hard for all of us to keep our hands out of the cookie jar, so maybe we should just munch unguiltily. :smile:

Rich, I don't know where you are getting "worst stuff", except as viewed from a winner/loser or perfectionist viewpoint, and that's impractical. What I meant was you (and Angeli) stayed/hung in there, frank in expressing what you are feeling, and recorded the evolution of your thought. That was cool, and I liked it. :smile: