"Anti-Americanism Blinds the left to what's at stake"

[RedCeltic]

I stole this from another bb thought you'd be interested..

An article from "The Independent"(an UK paper) that I thought was worth posting.

Anne McElvoy: Anti-Americanism blinds the left to what's at stake

'I hear people say they are more worried by Bush than by anything Osama bin Laden might be considering'
19 September 2001
Terrorists committed a mass execution of American citizens. This must, of course, be America's fault. It had it coming for being arrogant. It had it coming for supporting Israel. They had it coming for being so big and rich. In short, it had it coming for being America. The best thing that any self- respecting British liberal sort can do at this time is thus counsel that retaliation would be "proportionate" (what, as in 5,000-plus of their civilians, one for each killed in the World Trade Centre last Tuesday?)

The chorus of opinion has moved rapidly to articulate what measures we should not support, and what we should not do rather than what we should. On the face of it, this sounds like wise advice. No position is more agreeable to occupy than that of the voice of sound moderation, accusing others of extremism.

But I know the beginning of a slanted argument when I hear one and this is not a debate: it's an attempt to close down debate. The response of much left-of-centre comment on this side of the Atlantic has been to suggest that sweet reason, humanity and logic demand we should be intensely sceptical, if not downright hostile, to American intentions. It equates being in favour of military action with being some sort of crypto right-winger who can think of no better idea than to blast a few goat herds to kingdom come.

The tactic is depressingly familiar to anyone who had to fight it out with unilateralists during the Cold War ("Oh, so you're in favour of another Hiroshima and nuclear winter and making the planet uninhabitable...")

I should say that I appreciate how worried many people are by what to do next and how genuine their fears are. But the doctrine of "do nothing " (or "do little") can also be a handy way of concealing a gut anti-Americanism. There is something profoundly distasteful in the posture that the US must "look at" what it might have done to deserve the annihilation of thousands of its citizens, as if blame could be evenly shared out.

Reason is a delicate plant and one easily trodden under the stampede of the herd. I hear sensible people say that they are more worried by President George Bush's actions than by anything Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein have done or might be considering. Really, truly?

I hear people laughing at Bush's folksy language, as if it were an essential part of the Presidential brief to respect the rhetorical tastes of the British intelligentsia when an act of warfare has been perpetrated inside his country. What will the anti-Americans find to say when the US finally does react? The whole swelling orchestration of negativity is intended to create an atmosphere in which anything that it does, however carefully considered, is deemed to be wrong.

One of the strategic aims of all terrorists is to undermine the sense of identity and cohesion in the targeted state or institutions. If they can reduce their opponents to panicked squabbling hoards, so much the better. They are already on their way to succeeding in Britain, rather too well.

These are times when liberals and the centre-left have a special duty to think about how to use military power for the good. That cannot be done by ramping up inchoate fear rather than a sense of quiet purpose in defeating a deadly common enemy.

For me, being on the centre-left when it comes to the international role of the major democracies means not walking away from these choices. Unlike the isolationist sections of the right, we simply don't have the option of shrugging, "What a world!" and applying blinkers when we don't want to address the roots of evil.

This was the real danger of George Bush – the threat that under his leadership, America would turn inwards and spend its time counting its vast wealth and admiring itself in the glass, instead of acting as a force for good in the wider world. That is no longer an option. The isolationism of conservative America was blown apart last week. But what about the isolationism of liberal Europe?

The era of instant news breeds instant opinion to distort judgement. "Everyone" now knows that Osama bin Laden was a CIA creation. Yet the Independent on Sunday's investigation on the matter concludes that bin Laden may well not have been financed by the CIA at all. The myth that he did may be the result of confusion about Mujahedin factions.

Me, I don't know whether the CIA funded bin Laden. I do know from grinding experience on similar topics that these things are very difficult to find out with any certainty.

America's strategy is far more refined than its foes here suppose. They do seem to think Americans are genetically stupid. It is also more subtle than George Bush's warlike rhetoric. (Frankly, I could do with a bit less of that too, but then he's their president). As for the notion that it would all be different if only that nice Bill Clinton was still in charge, we are clearly in the grip of post-presidential delusion syndrome.

Clinton was a class act and a great guy and all of that. But when it came to intervention abroad , he was a very partial success, led all too often by exclusively domestic considerations. It was Clinton who rained 70 pointless missiles on Afghanistan in 1998 and hit the wrong targets in Sudan in reprisal for the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. If you want to protest about gesture bombing, a measure carried out to appease the appetite for revenge, rather than for any rational military strategy, then Clinton's your bad guy.

For all the pious injunctions to America not to "over-react", there has been has been no immediate miscalculation by Bush. All the signs are that his administration is pursuing a point-by-point strategy: first build a coalition with Pakistan. Then locate the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden. Next, apply pressure on the Mujahedin from Pakistan to extradite him. If that fails, which it very well might, prepare for a prolonged special forces offensive with bases inside Afghanistan and possibly Iraq aimed at destroying terrorist hideouts. Cruise missile strikes may well follow – but the signs are that Washington is clearer this time about their limited usefulness than it was three years ago.

These are not stupid responses to what has happened. The naive and damaging position is to imagine that if we do nothing, terrorists will give up and go home. Modern terrorists are highly mobile, but not entirely free-range creatures. They seeks out sponsor states and are parasitic upon them. Any attempt to bring them to justice entails defeating the power which shields them.

Beyond the sound and fury, Britain does have a role and a proud one. It is not in restraining hot-headed Bush, but in helping ensure that the Atlantic alliance holds together in Europe, with each country contributing to the effort in a way which is politically acceptable and which creates the most unity, rather than the most discord. That is the proper response of democracies under threat. Anything else is irresponsible naivete.

(Edited by RedCeltic at 10:27 am on Sep. 19, 2001)

[CPK]

redceltic what are other bb's url?
i would like to see them

[Drifter]

i must admit that iam guilty of tending toward having a knee-jerk, gut anti-American reaction to issues regarding the US.

that was an excellent article though,, thanks for posting it

[RedCeltic]

PRNSE--- a micro-nation it can be found at:

Http://www.soviet-empire.com

and the bb is listed on the left hand side under community and then Discussion forum.

[MrPebbles]

tis true that anti americanism exists even slightly in most of us but i am more against the american way than the american people they are no more stoopid than us but the main difference between your average american and us on the left is the reliability on money and capitalism, and i still feel that what america has done is worse than what these terroists have done no matter what in my opinion war is wrong and the americans have had more of em than most!

[Moskitto]

I'll have to look out for that, I get the Independant and there are alot of very interesting stories in there.

[CPK]

cool site man
really cool

[Chancho]

RedCeltic, thanks for posting that article - very thought provoking. But ultimately, I can't agree with the article's theme that urging caution and a considered response is really anti-Americanism masquerading as centre-left rational reflection.

What the article fails to consider is that some of us are not thinking in terms of nation states at all, but rather the ultimate outcome for humanity generally, regardless of geographical location or ideological persuasion.

What about the very significant consideration of America's military capability? Many are also urging caution in dealing with Pakistan because of its nuclear capability - this is mere commonsense (although I hate the idea that your political might is tied to the size of your arms cache!). That is the unfortunate reality.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks America should do nothing, but I think any reasonable person would agree that hard evidence must be produced against anyone deemed 'responsible' for the attacks, and that the action taken must be reasonable.

The indiscriminate use of homicide is something that most of us profess to deplore. If we are outraged at one party's use of terrorism and yet claim that another party's use of it is a 'justifiable response' - we are nothing better than deluded hypocrites.

We can't have it both ways.

[RedCeltic]

You make some very good points Chancho, I had professed to being a pacifist for some time. However in light of recent events I had been so hororfide that I have been supporting militery action. Perhaps that is more of a reaction than anything elce. I have rationalized it by thinking there is no altrnitive.
I had always though of war=money and money=war... but to rationalize it I told myself that this wasn't about it. Perhaps fooling myself...
So if the United States doesn't act militeraly do defend herself against such an attack then how should it?

It's not that I'm changing my position, but am somewhat confused/upset about the entire thing. and not thinking clearly. So I value other's thought on this...

[RedCeltic]

One point I can think of in the case against war is what will be done in retaliation to the Nato deployment? The biggest fear is always a biological one, as that was what I was thinking when I saw footage of people covered in dust from the colapsed buldings. I'm sure they still have people inside the US who can be called upon to die for Islam is some manner.

[Chancho]

RedCeltic ... what an extremely difficult question for any thinking person - what to do in the present situation?

The idea that military action is the only way is just another ugly by-product of ultra-nationalistic thinking. Of course, I don't see you as thinking that way but rather, it's part of the right-wing American approach that is so pervasive.

Perhaps we could think about what would be unhelpful for the world?

A 'war' against 'terrorists' makes no sense - the supply is not finite - how do we define 'terrorist'? Should the US start eliminating terrorists in the Middle East and then move on to every other nation on Earth? When should it stop? How will we know when all terrorists are eliminated? We can't.

How will the world feel about Americans if a 'war' was to begin? What about if it continued for a while? Years? Would military action in itself breed more anti-American sentiment? Then what? More terrorists - or increased anti-Americanism? How secure will US citizens feel if anti-American feeling has been raised to hysterical proportions?

Maybe we could think about what the objectives should be - alternatives include:
revenge
justice
security for America and its citizens
security for human beings
elimination of terrorism
elimination of fear
division of the world into 'us' and 'them'
unification of the world's peoples
etc

Determining what the objective(s) should be will help to clarify which path to take - and which not to.

I do think that the US must attempt to bring to justice - in an international court of law - those directly responsible. But some will ask - where's the revenge in that? Where's our chance to kill 6000 of 'theirs'? Isn't that only fair? Again I say - you either respect life or you don't.

We cannot condemn evil one day and become that same evil the next without losing our humanity and betraying our moral worth.

[RedCeltic]

I have thought about this for a long time. In fact I had been teetering on this for the past week. The events of last Tuesday have called into question beliefs that I have had for a long time. Metaphorically I have put everything up on the preverbal scales and everything was dead even. When I removed the largest weight from the “Pro war “ side then there is obviously no question in my mind as to which side of the fence I lie. (That being revenge)

I remember during the Gulf war someone had said to me that I was only against war because I was so distanced from it. If I were living in Kuwait City I would be for the Americans to liberate them from Iraq. However in my mind I thought of all the tons of people who have been attacked and invaded that the US didn’t go and help. This war was only about oil… for it was a rich country that we where going out to protect.

So it was objectively that I had come to that conclusion, which was easier for me because I was in the US and not in Kuwait. Now there is this WTC attack and some people I know are without relatives… some friends are missing, and most of all I am in fear. In rationalizing war I have to tell myself that there is no other way and that we must take military action. However we have called for military action even before we knew who did it! We have jumped the gun and said that we must defend ourselves and then sent troops overseas when the attackers are in the US!

Clearly the only real reason I have been supporting any military action is for revenge. There is no true reason to rush into this at the moment without proof that there is truly no other way.

And also I realize I am fooling myself when I say this isn’t about oil. This is retaliation on the US… and if we attack there is most likely to be retaliation. Which is a big reason not to support a war.

I have listened to people on both sides of the issue, and it has taken me awhile, but in the end I can’t find strong enough proof to convince me that we need a war at this time.

And also looking at the news this morning I see that Afghanistan Clerics have asked Bin Laden to go and the US said that it isn't enough! In my mind the US is clearly in the wrong now.. (if it ever was in the right) and so I can't support a war on these grounds.

(Edited by RedCeltic at 11:53 am on Sep. 20, 2001)

[Drifter]

military action can be very effective , such as in the falklands, but everything changes when dealing with terrorists and guerilla forces.
attacking countries that may harbour them is no garantee by a long shot that they will be defeated, even if the threatend nation pledges full support, if the terrorists have the people on their side they can go to ground and disperse. Take out one of the leaders and he will be replaced by another even more righteous.
The ruskis spent ten years in afganistan and lost.

[gooddoctor]

i think that everyone's forgeting one simple fact: that this is a criminal investigation not a military conflict and all talk of war is completely irrelevant and unjustified. is it possible that a lot of people are expecting or even inviting war because bush's irresponsible and inflammatory words in the wake of the disaster were taken out of context. perhaps he intends to wage "war on terrorism" in the same cack-handed way that he's persuing his "war on drugs", and that he doesn't intend to wage full scale war against a political power at all.

if bush goes to war in the middle east he will not only be going to war against terrorists, there will be many more hidden enemies too. the us will inevitably create new enemies each with his own reason to hate and want to punish the us.

the following links are just so many reasons not to go to war and to remain diplomatic and judicial:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0...,554283,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/...4260023,00.html

http://www.almuhajiroun.com/

(Edited by gooddoctor at 7:01 pm on Sep. 20, 2001)

[RedCeltic]

The fact is that the UK has a fleet in the area... sent for five more ships to pass through the Suez, and the US Navy is sending several carrier groups to the area... both the USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN71 (my old ship) and the USS Enterprise (my brother's old ship) along with the usual acompaning destroyers, crusers, guided missle crusers, subs, mine sweepers, etc... At this moment in fact troops are leaving the US to an undesclosed location...

[gooddoctor]

america is flexing its muscles.

[Drifter]

Perhaps,
thopugh if what you say is true then i'm not exactly filled with confidence

[Drifter]

will gunboat diplomacy be enough do you think?

[RedCeltic]

I think it's a short term solution. Even if gunboat diplomacy does work in getting this guy, it doesn't address the situation at large.

[Chancho]

gooddoctor - I haven't seen any evidence that the reasonable members here subscribe to the present rhetoric of 'war' - just the opposite in fact.

I think it's more accurate to describe the terrorist attacks as a crime against humanity.

If the US initiates military action, such action will constitute acts of war, however, and no amount of 'doublespeak' from the US government can mask that fact from the thinking individuals of this world.

RedCeltic - I admire your ability to remain rational and thoughtful in the face of this tragedy - what a pity the majority aren't as reasonable as you...

IF Bin Laden is responsible, the idea of removing the sponsorship of any state that protects him is one of the smartest moves that could be made - perhaps the continued applicatin of reasoned measures like this will yield the result that we must be satisfied with - the capture of those responsible in order to bring them before an international court of law.

The only question is, will the US be satisfied with such an undramatic result?