Or am I just becoming jaded? Looters did plunder thousands of years worth of priceless historical relics from the Iraqi National Museum, but that's freedom, right? [recommended musical selection - I couldn't resist] And Colin Powell shook his fist at Syria again, joining Richard Perle in rhetoric that, despite denials, seems to be designed to prepare us for the next war.

Some good signs flashed here and there, too.

I'm a little burned-out, I guess. I just haven't felt much like writing today. Could be the weather. Another beautiful Spring day, sunny, temps back into the mid 70s after a week of rainy 40s. Sinfully wonderful weather. The dogs and I took a long walk through the park and around the town, soaking in the warmth, the beauty. White and pink dogwoods, azaleas, sweet-smelling wisteria...

I was surprised how few people were out today. The people I did see were unusually subdued, none of the usual friendly greetings; folks seemed to be avoiding eye contact. Seemed strange. Maybe it's the war, I thought, maybe it's because I'm against the war. But I was wearing a UNC Rugby Club T-shirt, hardly a pacifist statement. Then I noticed they weren't just acting that way towards me. Beats me.

Came home and watched Ghost World, which seemed appropriate. Thought about writing, but like I said, didn't much feel like it.

If you want something really good to read, try this New York Times Magazine article on the effects of the Iraq war on the laws of war. I don't agree with everything he says, but it's well-written and thoughtful. And timely, too, because - let's face it - the Iraq war was a bit hit, and these days, all big hits have sequels. So read up.

You might as well read up on Syria, while you're at it.

Posted by Me at 23:37 link

A federal judge in San Fransciso today blocked a Bush administration attempt to weaken 'dolphin safe' labeling rules. The proposed changes would have allowed fishermen to label as 'dolphin safe' tuna caught using encircling nets, which environmentalists believe to harm dolphins. The victory isn't permanent; the decision will remain in force only until a lawsuit filed by environmental groups is heard several months from now. I'll keep you posted.

Lose some...

The US House of Representatives approved an industry-friendly energy bill today that will, among other provisions, allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The loss should be short-lived, though, as the bill next goes to the Senate, where Democrats have vowed to oppose any legislation that allows drilling in ANWR. I will most likely pester you to take action before the Senate vote.

Meanwhile, in another part of the world...

Anarchy rules the streets of Baghdad. Read the soldier's quote at the end of this article. I think that about sums up the US attitude towards the entire situation. Of course, if Rummy had his way, the press would shut the hell up about the "untidiness" and just stick to telling everyone how great it is for Iraqis to be free. Sounds like the same attitude to me. Here are some photos from the BBC.

Let's hope North Korea's just rattling their sabre. The problem is, with the Bush doctrine on the table, anyone who feels threatened can now strike first - unilaterally - and claim self-defense. As with so many American fads, this one seems to be catching on all over the world.

Posted by Me at 19:26 link

We won the war.

Victory was pretty much inevitable. After all, we outspend the Iraqi military 300 to 1. The headline in today's Statesville Record & Landmark was "BAGHDAD FALLS", rendered in the same size type used to announce the end of World War II. The real story was more like "Most Powerful Military in World History Kicks Much Smaller Military in Balls", but obviously they would've had to have used a smaller font.

I expect Americans will now switch off the news and get back to doing the things that make us who we are: eating; watching stupid TV; and of course, buying stuff.

And that endangered species, the liberalus americanus, will also get back to doing what makes us who we are: doubting ourselves. I couldn't help thinking "maybe I was wrong" several times as I watched / listened / read yesterday's news; I came to my senses only after doing another typical liberal thing - thinking.

Yesterday I noted some dark clouds on the horizon: Arab suspicion, Shi'ite suspicion, a flawed war crimes plan, a belligerent US administration and a number of US hawks who just can't get enough of "let's roll!"™

Today, as I stewed in the bittersweet juices of self-doubt, I remembered the mood of the US in the fall of '01, between the September 11^th terrorist attacks and the start of the Afghanistan war. Almost everyone in America was eager for war, eager to get payback for the atrocities, each to teach "those bastards" a lesson they wouldn't soon forget.

At the time, I felt it was foolish to start a war over what were essentially criminal acts, that the right response would be to arrest those involved and only those involved. But the mob wanted war, and they got it. I can't argue too much against "Operation Enduring Freedom". The Taliban were, at the very least, unable to help us catch bin Laden & company, and unwilling for us to come in and arrest them ourselves. The world agreed with us, the UN Security Council duly resolved that it should be so, and we went in and did what most people felt needed to be done. But is a larger war, a war on terrorism, necessary?

As we get further into the war(s) on terrorism, it becomes clearer to me that war is the wrong answer. A war on terrorism makes about as much sense as a war on fever. Terrorism is a tactic, terrorism is a symptom, terrorism is often the last resort of very desperate people. Terrorism is not an ideology, a country, or an alliance.

Besides that, the primary goal of terrorism is to force the victim to respond. The bigger - and more general - the response, the more successful the terrorism. The al Qaeda terrorists were (are) a tiny minority of the Afghan population, a tinier fraction yet of the Arab world, tinier still of the Islamic world. Their aim was to force us to retaliate in such a way that our retaliation affected not only them, but all of Afghanistan, all of the Arab world and all of Islam. They succeeded.

But surely we are doing good stuff, aren't we? Isn't Afghanistan better off now without the Taliban? Aren't Iraqis now free? Isn't the world safer for democracy?

NO. To all three.

In Afghanistan, the US military has killed more civilians than the terrorists killed in the US on September 11^th. (source - contains links to several more sources) The environment has been devastated. The US and our allies have neglected the reconstruction of Afghanistan to such a degree that the Taliban is making a comeback. Bin Laden remains at large, still issuing directives to a growing cadre of followers. But we sure kicked some ass, didn't we?

Maybe Iraq will turn out better. Maybe we'll be able to restore law and order. Maybe we'll be able to calm the fierce hatreds prevalent across the country. Maybe we can prevent new tyranny from replacing the old tyranny. Maybe we can stop the war from spreading. Maybe we'll do what needs to be done and then go home. Early indications are we have a rough road ahead.

As for the rest of the world... Far from "learning their lesson", our potential enemies appear to be hardening their resistance. Even our strongest allies are turning away from us.

Yeah, we won the war. Our fighting skills are second-to-none. But unless we want to live in a world of perpetual war, we need to learn some other skills pretty quickly.

Posted by Me at 17:53 link

The Iraqi people danced in the streets of Baghdad on Wednesday, April 9, 2003, surely a date which will resonate for Iraqi people for a long, long time. They hugged and kissed American soldiers, gave them flowers, thanked them - and Bush - for freeing them from Saddam Hussein, and waved American flags. They tore down statues and posters of their newly-deposed tyrant, cursed his name and shouted "Death to Saddam!", a refreshing change from the usual refrain of "Death to America!" so often heard throughout the Middle East.

Today was a good day. For Americans, for Britons, for Iraqis - for everyone in the world who opposed Saddam's tyranny, whether they thought war was the answer or not. The fighting will soon be over, and the support of the Iraqi people should mean that most of our troops can come home.

The question becomes "what now?"

Today's news offers some hints. Tucked among the many articles chronicling the joyous celebrations are some less-than-encouraging portents:

• The story of the fall of Baghdad provoked a much less gleeful reaction across the rest of Arab world.
  

• A number of key Iraqis are less than thrilled.
  

• The American plan for US-sponsored, Iraqi-led war crimes tribunals is a recipe for failure, according to Human Rights Watch.
  

• John Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, couldn't resist poking a stick at the other countries on the apparent US hitlist: he urged Iran, Syria and North Korea, to "draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq". Unfortunately, the lesson they learn may be completely different from the intended one.
  

• If some have their way, Iraq will be only the beginning.

From Physicians for Social Responsibility, via Care2:

Demand Smart Security Policies!

The U.S. is the world's strongest military power. The national security policies we pursue today will have deep and lasting implications for the safety of citizens in the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Unfortunately the current approach to global relations does not reflect long term planning, a sensitivity to international sentiment or an effort to ensure international cooperation. More and more, the current approach to U.S. national security is resulting in greater international discord, distrust and instability.

Recent U.S. actions will have consequences! Already, reports suggest that anti-American resentment is at an all time high. According to a New York Times interview with a senior American counterintelligence official, "A U.S. invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and other groups and it is a very effective tool."

SMART Security requires policies that will truly reduce the threats from terrorism, war and weapons of mass destruction.

Current Policy is Not SMART Security! Demand smart security today! http://www.care2.com/go/z/5233

We should not:
**Confront terrorism with preemptive attacks in regions where U.S. power and support for autocratic regimes is already resented.
**Ignore the sentiments of the majority of U.S. citizens --as well as world opinion--by abandoning international disarmament and environmental treaties.
**Starve programs for alternative, safe and renewable domestic energy sources, while we increase our dependence on foreign sources of oil, thus increasing our military entanglements in other nations, and worsening the threat of global warming.

[Instead we should] demand a new approach to security that reflects American values and is grounded in international cooperation, the rule of international law, and preventive diplomacy. Tell the Bush Administration to GET SMART and support smart security policies! Sign the citizen's platform on Smart Security!

Its FREE! SIGN NOW! http://www.care2.com/go/z/5233

Posted by Me at 22:16 link

You've seen the Iraq Body Count in my sidebar and probably elsewhere. IBC is an ambitious attempt to provide an accurate count of the number of civilians killed, the "collateral damage" of this war.

I just realized what's been bothering me about their graphic. The caption reads "Civilian casualties update"; underneath, two numbers display, a "minumum" figure and a "maximum" figure, updated via their website as new data are verified.

What bothers me is their use of the word "casualties" to refer only to those killed. Surely, the wounded are also casualties of war. Surely, many of their lives have been wrecked beyond repair.

I realize it's practically impossible to get anything like an accurate count of injured civilians during the chaotic hell of war. The short answer is the situation is horrible, approaching catastrophic. Estimates from expert witnesses in Baghdad hospitals report rates as high as 100 wounded arriving each hour during the heaviest fighting. The full story won't be known for years, if ever.

I applaud the creators of the Iraq Body Count project. They're doing humankind a valuable service by showing some of the reality of war. But we should remember that the figures they provide are only the tip of the whole story. The true number of civilian dead is almost certainly much higher than even the "maximum" figure indicates - and the wounded aren't included. The Iraqi military death (and injury) toll is likely enormous. The coalition casualties are well-publicized, but even those figures don't indicate the mental, psychological and spiritual damage close exposure to combat always brings.

If you believe in political action, contact your elected representatives. Encourage them to use their power to stop this war, and to do everything possible to prevent any more wars. Let them know that you're aware of coalition violations of the laws of war, and that you want such actions stopped immediately.

If you pray, pray for everyone victimized by this horrible war.

Posted by Me at 00:12 link

From The Daily Show via Salon:

["Senior U.N. Analyst" Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart discuss Saddam Hussein's looming disarmament deadline]

Stewart: Haven't there been some rumors that he may not even have some of those weapons?

Colbert: That would be a huge headache for Saddam. In that case, he'd have to build factories to create the weapons, create them, admit to having created them and then destroy them. Again, by Monday. It's nearly impossible, Jon, unless he possesses weapons of mass destruction, in which case he can use them to destroy his weapons of mass destruction ...

Stewart: I'm confused. We think he has weapons, but if he doesn't ...

Colbert: Jon, don't confuse him actually having them with the threat posed by our thinking he has them. Just imagine what Saddam could do if he did what we're imagining he'll do. It's almost unimaginable.

Posted by Me at 17:58 link

Your help is needed yet again to protect the Arctic Refuge from new oil drilling. The U.S. House of Representative's may vote this week on a new, flawed energy bill - a bill that will increase oil dependence, increase emissions of global warming gases, and will allow new oil drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. This comes after failed attempts in Congress last year to pass a bad energy bill, and last month's vote AGAINST Arctic drilling in the Senate.

HOW TO BLOCK ARCTIC OIL DRILLING:
Reps. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Nancy Johnson (R-CT) will introduce a great amendment to remove provisions that would authorize oil and gas development in the pristine coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Environmental Defense supports this amendment and so should you.

ACT NOW:
Two things you can do to save the Arctic Refuge:
1) Send a message to your Representative in Congress opposing oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Take action:
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/arctic_drilling0403/

2) Call your Representative - TOLL FREE! Ask your Representative to oppose oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

1-877-703-9491 (toll free)

TALKING POINTS:
When calling your Representative, be sure to make these critical points:
- "I Oppose oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska."
- "Please support the Markey/Johnson Amendment removing provisons allowing Arctic oil drilling from the energy bill."
- "Please vote no on any energy bill that does include provisions allowing oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge."

Remember to give your name and address so they can send you a response. Also, please e-mail us (takeaction@environmentaldefense.org) and let us know if you made your phone call and which Representative you called. This helps us track the impact of our campaign.

Posted by Me at 13:34 link

Check out what your money is buying in Iraq (CAUTION: DISTURBING). Let president Bush know what you think about it. Here's the story of Ali Ismail Abbas.

Posted by Me at 01:30 link

I've got questions. For some questions I have possible answers. Help me out if you have answers of your own. I'm just going to dive in, in no particular order.

Some argue that a "just cause" can justify actions which would otherwise clearly be unjust. Here are some cases.

1. A man steals food to save the lives of his starving family.
As made famous in Les Miserables. Most, including myself, would say that the circumstance should mitigate the punishment; however, the circumstance doesn't justify the crime. Also, the degree of mititgation depends on whether the thief had other viable options (work, food stamps, etc) to feed his family. If the thief had other ways of feeding his family, his poverty is no mitigation and his theft deserves full punishment.

2. Police resort to torture to solve or prevent a great crime
How great is the crime? How severe is the torture? Should those factors matter? I believe, along with the UN, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International that torture is never justified under any circumstance. The State of Israel, among others, disagrees.

3. A country uses immoral weapons or tactics in order to save lives by ending a conflict sooner.
The US has done this at least twice that I'm aware. In World War II, we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to avoid what many believed would be the greater horror of ground warfare on the Japanese mainland. Although casualties are difficult to estimate, something like 200,000 were killed or injured in the blasts. Had an invasion taken place, planners estimated over 1 million American casualties (although casualties are even more difficult to estimate in the hypothetical), never mind Japanese military and civilian casualties. On a smaller scale, but perhaps no less horrifying, in the 1991 Gulf War, the US used bulldozers and tank-mounted ploughs to bury alive a large number of Iraqi soldiers¹. Again the intention was to save lives, by ending the fighting sooner. Were these acts justified? I don't believe anyone anywhere can convince me that burying human beings alive could ever be justified. The debate over use of the atomic bomb is more controversial. I side with Albert Einstein, who said in an interview in 1946:

Had we shown other nations the test explosion at Alamagordo, New Mexico, we could have used it as an education for new ideas. It would have been an impressive and favorable moment to make considered proposals for world order to end war. Our renunciation of this weapon as too terrible to use would have carried great weight in negotiations and made convincing our sincerity in asking other nations for a binding partnership to develop these newly unleashed powers for good....

4. A country whose very existence is threatened uses immoral weapons to ensure its survival.
The International Court of Justice addressed this question in 1996, specifically considering whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons could ever be considered legal. The court's decision was that their use could never be considered legal - except possibly in extreme cases of self-defense, where a state's existence is threatened. Far from an outright endorsement in these situations, the court ruled that it "could not conclude that such uses would be illegal". Regardless, the rest of International Humanitarian Law would still apply. And under that law, which provides no exeptions for states whose existence is threatened, the use of nuclear weapons would still be illegal for a number of reasons. Here's just one reason, according to the World Health Organization:

it [is] virtually impossible to use such weapons against military targets without simultaneously causing tremendous damage both among the civilian populations of the parties to the conflict and to countries outside the theatre of war; since radiation, electromagnetic bursts and radioactive dust [know] no frontiers, nuclear arms [can] be regarded as weapons causing indiscriminate effects and infringing on both the territorial integrity of third States and the rules of neutrality. [source]

5. One country invades another, repressive country to liberate the people.
International Law, especially the United Nations Charter, explicitly forbids a nation (or group of nations) from attacking another nation (or group of nations). The only exception is the "inherent right" of self-defense. If attacked, a nation has the right to defend itself, to reverse the damage caused by an attack (eg loss of territory), and to prevent future attacks. A nation can also claim self-defense if they have compelling evidence that attack is imminent. Otherwise, the only legitimate authority to order the use of force is the UN Security Council. In fact, even in cases of self-defense, a nation acting without UN legitimacy must turn the matter over to the Security Council as soon as possible.

In the wake of the September 11^th terrorist attacks, some conservatives argue that the "old rules" of international law shouldn't apply. Some argue the threat posed by "rogue states" suspected of possessing weapons of mass destruction justifies the preemptive use of force to prevent attacks that could take place in the future, even if that means abandoning international law and the UN. British foreign policy advisor Robert Cooper presents an argument, breathtaking in its cynicism, suggesting that ultimately, might always trumps law:

The international order is created by force, preserved by force and backed by the threat of force. International law is the particular form of order we have adopted to enable us to run a global economy; but force is what established that order. Force may be legitimate or illegitimate; it may be wise or foolish; it may be in the interests of the international community or not; but questions about whether it is legal or not seem – at this stage of world history at least – merely pedantic.

To sum up: I believe good ends never justify bad means. Moral shortcuts can produce only bad ends.

Your feedback in always encouraged. I'll post more questions in coming days

¹ When I first heard about this I didn't believe it. Sadly, it's true. I verified it a number of places. Here's another credible source. Apparently, the incident, which took place in late February 1991, was first reported in the September 12, 1991 Los Angeles Times.

Posted by Me at 00:49 link

Received: Monday, September 10, 2001 10:36 PM

Dear Mr. Long,

I do hope your ankle is feeling better !

It is my pleasure to write to you about my flight details to Denver, Colorado on October 4th, 2001. Mere words cannot express my happiness at this wonderful moment.

The thoughts of being in the wonderful and beautiful Rocky Mountains fill my heart with wonder and awe.

Listed below is my itinerary :

EWR to CVG
Delta   481     Dep:  9:55am         Arr: 11:57am

CVG to DEN
Delta 1497      Dep: 12:35pm        Arr:  1:29pm

Ah !
DEN to CVG
Delta 2120      Dep:  1:40pm        Arr:  6:06pm

CVG to EWR
Delta 1634      Dep:  6:55pm        Arr:  8:55pm

Oh !

I am indeed fortunate to have you as my climbing partner. YOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Long on Long's Peak !

Sincerely yours,
-
More later. It is rather late.

Received: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 9:04 AM
Subject: The Mule

A city boy moved to the country and bought a mule from an old farmer for $100.

The farmer agreed to deliver the mule the next day. The next day, the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry, but I have some bad news. The mule died."

"Well, then, just give me my money back."

"Can't do that. I went and spent it already."

"OK, then. Just unload the mule."

"What ya gonna do with him?"

"I'm going to raffle him off."

"You can't raffle off a dead mule!"

"Sure I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he's dead."

A month later the farmer met up with the city boy and asked, "Whatever happened with that dead mule?"

"I raffled him off. I sold a hundred tickets at two dollars a piece and made a ninety-eight dollar profit."

"Didn't anyone complain?"

"Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back."

Received: Thursday, September 13, 2001 8:23 AM
Subject: FW: WELL WRITTEN FOR SURE

By Leonard Pitts Jr.
Syndicated columnist / Seattle Times

They pay me to tease shades of meaning from social and cultural issues, to provide words that help make sense of that which troubles the American soul. But in this moment of airless shock when hot tears sting disbelieving eyes, the only thing I can find to say, the only words that seem to fit, must be addressed to the unknown author of this suffering.

You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard. What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever it was, please know that you failed.

Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned your cause.
Did you want to make us fear? You just steeled our resolve.
Did you want to tear us apart? You just brought us together.

Let me tell you about my people. We are a vast and quarrelsome family, a family rent by racial, cultural, political and class division, but a family nonetheless. We're frivolous, yes, capable of expending tremendous emotional energy on pop cultural minutiae, a singer's revealing dress, a ball team's misfortune, a cartoon mouse.

We're wealthy, too, spoiled by the ready availability of trinkets and material goods, and maybe because of that, we walk through life with a certain sense of blithe entitlement. We are fundamentally decent, though - peace-loving and compassionate. We struggle to know the right thing and to do it. And we are, the overwhelming majority of us, people of faith, believers in a just and loving God.

Some people - you, perhaps - think that any or all of this makes us weak. You're mistaken. We are not weak. Indeed, we are strong in ways that cannot be measured by arsenals.

Yes, we're in pain now. We are in mourning and we are in shock. We're still grappling with the unreality of the awful thing you did, still working to make ourselves understand that this isn't a special effect from some Hollywood blockbuster, isn't the plot development from a Tom Clancy novel.

Both in terms of the awful scope of its ambition and the probable final death toll, your attacks are likely to go down as the worst acts of terrorism in the history of the United States and, indeed, the history of the world. You've bloodied us as we have never been bloodied before.

But there's a gulf of difference between making us bloody and making us fall. This is the lesson Japan was taught to its bitter sorrow the last time anyone hit us this hard, the last time anyone brought us such abrupt and monumental pain.

When roused, we are righteous in our outrage, terrible in our force. When provoked by this level of barbarism, we will bear any suffering, pay any cost, go to any length, in the pursuit of justice.

I tell you this without fear of contradiction. I know my people, as you, I think, do not. What I know reassures me. It also causes me to tremble with dread of the future.

In days to come, there will be recrimination and accusation, fingers pointing to determine whose failure allowed this to happen and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. There will be heightened security, misguided talk of revoking basic freedoms. We'll go forward from this moment sobered, chastened, sad.

But determined, too. Unimaginably determined.

You see, there is steel beneath this velvet. That aspect of our character is seldom understood by people who don't know us well. On this day, the family's bickering is put on hold. As Americans we will weep, as Americans we will mourn, and as Americans, we will rise in defense of all that we cherish.

Still, I keep wondering what it was you hoped to teach us. It occurs to me, that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred.

If that's the case, consider the message received. And take this message in exchange: You don't know my people. You don't know what we're about. You don't know what you just started.

But you're about to learn.

Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: FW: WELL WRITTEN FOR SURE

That sums up the way a lot of people feel - but - I'm afraid a lot of people are reacting just the way the terrorists want us to react.

The terrorists would like nothing better than for the US and other nations to bomb the Islamic countries all to hell, and otherwise to seek retribution. this would fulfill their goal of escalating this situation to World War proportions.

A lot of people have been calling these acts "acts of war". Nope. This is terrorism.

War is carried out by a nation, or a group of nations, against another nation or group of nations. The decision to act is made by the nations' leaders. Ideally, the will of the people in the agressor nations is united and focused on the aim of the leaders. Acts of war are generally acknowledged as such by the agressors. Pearl Harbor is a classic example of an act of war.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is carried out by small groups of people without the consent of the leaders of the nations in which they live, and without the will of the people in those nations behind them. The September 11^th attacks are classic examples of terrorism.

Terrorism's aim is to incite as strong a response as possible from the victim nation. Right now, only a small fraction of people in Arab nations want a war with the United States and her allies. But if the US and her allies launch major attacks against Arab nations, public sentiment in those nations will rise against us. Other attacks against the US and her allies will follow, which will lead to more retribution... which may lead to a general war. Recent history suggests this war would be horrible almost beyond comprehension, with casualties rising into the millions, not thousands. Biological and chemical weapons would likely be used against (and possibly by) us. This is what the terrorists want. They believe God is on their side and that they would prevail in a general war.

The right course of action for the US and her allies is to find the specific persons responsible for these attacks and to bring those individuals to justice. As much as possible we should enlist the aid of Arab nations, most of whom have condemned these attacks.

We must be very careful to focus our anger only on these particular terrorists themselves, not on Arabic peoples or Muslims generally. Most Muslims do not support these acts - or terrorism generally.

I am touched by how many nations, many of whom we often regard as our enemies, have stepped up to condemn these attacks and to show their support for us in our time of need. We need to join with these nations in the search for the terrorists, to strengthen the bonds of our common humanity. That way, the terrorists lose and everyone else wins.

Received: Thursday October 11, 2001 10:17 AM
Subject: FW: Worth Reading

A British View of the US/Bin Laden affair
by Andrew Sullivan in the London Times

No eloquence can match the impact of their evil. Americans' critical weakness in the past two decades has been their reluctance to shed blood for their goals. They believed they could construct a huge military and never have it fight real wars and suffer real casualties. They thought they could alter history and advance their interests from the air alone.

With the exception of the Gulf War, which they hesitated to finish, they have shrunk from the fight. When the current enemy struck again and again throughout the 1990s, Bill Clinton responded without real credibility, struck back without real endurance, enraged the terrorists without truly hurting them. We are now living with the consequences of his appeasement, and of his refusal to challenge Americans beyond what the polls said they already wanted to do. Whoever launched this war on Americans has now accomplished the task Clinton didn't dare embark on.

America has been bloodied as it has never been bloodied before. I would be a fool to predict what happens next. But it is clear that Bush will not do a Clinton. This will not be a surgical strike. It will not be a gesture. It may not even begin in earnest soon. But it will be deadly serious. It is clear that there is no way that the United States can achieve its goals without the cooperation of many other states - an alliance as deep and as broad as that which won the Gulf War. It is also clear that this cannot be done by airpower alone. As in 1941, the neglect of the military under Bill Clinton and the parsimony of its financing even under Bush must now not merely be ended but reversed.

We may see the biggest defense build-up since the early 1980s - and not just in weaponry, but in manpower.

It is also quite clear that the U.S. military presence in the Middle
East must be ramped up exponentially, its intelligence overhauled, its vigilance heightened exponentially. In some ways, Bush has already assembled the ideal team for such a task: Powell for the diplomatic dance, Rumsfeld for the deep reforms he will now have the opportunity to enact, Cheney as his most trusted aide in what has become to all intents and purposes a war cab-inet. The terrorists have done the rest. The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for Bush - is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column. But by striking at the heart of New York City, the terrorists ensured that at least one deep segment of the country ill-disposed toward a new president is now the most passionate in his defense. Anyone who has ever tried to get one over on a New Yorker knows what I mean.

The demons who started this have no idea about the kind of people they have taken on.

But what the terrorists are also counting on is that Americans will not have the stomach for the long haul. They clearly know that the coming retaliation will not be the end but the beginning. And when the terrorists strike back again, they have let us know that the results could make the assault on the World Trade Center look puny. They are banking that Americans will then cave. They have seen a great country quarrel to the edge of constitutional crisis over a razor-close presidential election. They have seen it respond to real threats in the last few years with squeamish restraint or surgical strikes. They have seen that, as Israel has been pounded by the same murderous thugs, the United States has responded with equanimity. They have seen a great nation at the height of its power obsess for a whole summer over a missing intern and a randy Congressman.

They have good reason to believe that this country is soft, that it has no appetite for the war that has now begun. They have gambled that in response to unprecedented terror, the Americans will abandon Israel to the barbarians who would annihilate every Jew on the planet, and trade away their freedom for a respite from terror in their own land.

We cannot foresee the future. But we know the past. And that past tells us that these people who destroyed the heart of New York City have made a terrible mistake. This country is at its heart a peaceful one. It has done more to help the world than any other actor in world history. It saved the world from the two greatest evils of the last century: Nazism and Soviet Communism. It responded to its victories in the last war by pouring aid into Europe and Japan. In the Middle East, America alone has ensured that the last hope of the Jewish people is not extinguished and has given more aid to Egypt than to any other country. It risked its own people to save the Middle East from the pseudo-Hitler in Baghdad. America need not have done any of this. Its world hegemony has been less violent and less imperial than any other comparable power in history. In the depths of its soul, it wants its dream to itself, to be left alone, to prosper among others, and to welcome them to the freedom America has helped secure.

But whenever Americans have been challenged, they have risen to the task. In some awful way, these evil thugs may have done us a favor. America may have woken up forever. The rage that will follow from this grief and shock may be deeper and greater than anyone now can imagine. Think of what the United States ultimately did to the enemy that bombed Pearl Harbor. Now recall that American power in the world is all but unchallenged by any other state. Recall that America has never been wealthier, and is at the end of one of the biggest booms in its history. And now consider the extent of this wound - the greatest Civilian casualties since the Civil War, an assault not just on Americans but on the meaning of America itself. When you take a step back, it is hard not to believe that we are now in the quiet moment before the whirlwind. Americans will recover their dead, and they will mourn them, and then they will get down to business. Their sadness will be mingled with an anger that will make the hatred of these evil fanatics seem mild. I am reminded of a great American poem written by Herman Melville after the death of Abraham Lincoln, the second founder of the country:

There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the land;
But the People in their weeping
Bare the iron hand;
Beware the People weeping
When they bare the iron hand."

Sent: Thursday October 11, 2001 3:54 PM

Subject: Re: FW: Worth reading

Sounds like propaganda to me. Not in any way to diminish the awfulness of September 11, but the message seems more than a little naïve. I don't think America's real 'weakness' in the past two decades has been our 'reluctance to shed blood', but rather our willingness to do just that - especially the blood of the citizens of other nations who stood in our way, without much critical examination of our actions by the American people. "So what if we kill a bunch of people halfway around the globe?" This seems to have been the attitude of most of the US population. Our attacks on Iraq stopped receiving any media coverage at all - we were bored with it.

As for the assertion that the 'demons who started this have no idea about the kind of people they have taken on', once again I think Mr. Sullivan has it backwards: they know us quite well, we know next to nothing about them, or about why the Arab world harbors a deep hatred for America. No, it's not because we are successful, or even because we are decadent, but because we (the American people) have carelessly supported repressive regimes throughout the Middle East without demanding the kind of reforms that would have made life more tolerable for regular people there - all the while ensuring the great prosperity of a select few within those countries.

It's sad, really. Over and over, the US government has acted on behalf of US economic interests while turning a blind eye to governments who allow their citizens fewer fundamental freedoms than the so-called evil empire we so vigorously opposed all those years. Sadder still is the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't know - or even care - what our goverment has been doing overseas.

I agree that Saddam Hussein should not be allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction, but is it doing anyone any good to bomb, isolate and starve Iraq? I agree that we should support Israel, but not unconditionally. Is it right they should occupy the West Bank and Gaza, ruling 3 million people against their will? When will the Palestinian state happen? Where is the famous American committment to 'liberty and justice for all?' Is it any wonder that people with little hope for freedom or prosperity would turn to fundamentalism? Is it any wonder they feel betrayed by the West? These people are not angels, and their extreme fundamentalist ideas are misguided and unhealthy. But these people are not 'barbarians intent on the annihilation of Jews.' I think it could be said that they want what Americans have always claimed as their birthrights - freedom and justice.

Of course, the perpetrators of September 11 went about it the worst way possible and they should be captured and punished. But why not under the auspices of the UN? What's the message here? That the US is above the law, set apart from other nations? That we can do whatever we deem right, without any restraints whatsoever?

I hope Mr. Sullivan is right about the unwavering will of the American public. I don't think he's right about the Bush administration. I don't think Bush or most of his advisors (with the possible exception of Powell) fully appreciate what they are getting us into. It seems to me that the hawks are doing what they always do at the slightest provocation. So far it seems cooler heads have prevailed.

For our sake, and the sake of the world, may the cooler heads continue to prevail.

[Why did I post this? I'm not certain. But I sure miss the days when I didn't know who Andrew Sullivan was. Too bad the cooler heads didn't prevail. War wasn't the answer then, and it's not the answer now. War is a dead mule. I want my $2 back]

Posted by Me at 01:25 link