This is an article about questions, not answers.
In the blogosphere, especially, many people shout out very loud, confident answers, explanations, conspiracy theories, and of course, name-calling tirades. Some of these blustery monologues could be improved just by starting with the right questions – and by admitting that we don’t necessarily have the answers.
In America as a whole, the culture of conformity rules. Entirely too many people prefer to eat at the same chain restaurants, wear the same brands of clothing, have the same opinions about the same movies and television shows, and most insidiously of all, either ignore politics and world affairs altogether, or else follow the group-think political inclinations and worldview dictated by their chosen tribe – roughly and broadly, either the Red State Club or the Blue State Club. It’s the duty of citizens in a democracy to be skeptical both of those currently in power and those who would like to take their places. And skeptical citizens should be asking questions.
I have a few.
Is the “War on Terror” really a war, or is it an advertising slogan? Is it necessary? Is it making us safer or less safe? How can we tell? Whose word can we trust?
Was military action the best and only possible response to 9/11? Or did we blow an important opportunity to win hearts and minds? Did our hunger for “justice” (i.e., vengeance) blind us to the long-term consequences of our actions?
Why was so much of the world sympathetic to us, “on our side” in the weeks immediately after 9/11, and why does so much of the world now, in Europe as well as the Middle East, think of us as the Big Bully on the Block? Are they right? Do we care what they think? If not, why not? What will be the consequences of years or decades in which most of the countries of the world see us as a club-wielding empire?
If most of the potential terrorists in the world are angry young Muslim men, taught to see the US as the Great Satan and the killer of children and the friend of autocratic Arab regimes, shouldn’t we try to change their minds, demonstrate that they’re wrong? Why instead do we bomb first and ask questions later, keep hundreds in detention for years without charges, maintain our largely uncritical “friendships” with the oppressive governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, prefer threats to diplomacy – in short, why do we go out of our way to prove to these young men that we are exactly as awful as they have been taught we are?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mohjho
Look Randall, your either on the bus or off the bus. You are obviously off the Bush bus, which makes you at least a lefty America hater, or at most an enemy combatant.
The Republican right believes that a strong authoritarian political structure IS national security. There is no rule or law that they cannot bypass or bend as their sacred duty to protect America and promote themselves.
Whether its watering down the constitution, promoting friendly corporations without oversite, or messing with the voting proccess to disinfranchise those who will not support them, they by their actions have shown little respect for our democratic ideals.
Secrecy promotes corruption but also promotes the secret holders position at the top of the political heap. By asking questions, you are gnawing at the purse strings of authority. This will not due.
Do us all a favor and keep asking questions!
2 - Dave Nalle
Frankly, I'd prefer one or two interesting and original answers to a whole bunch of questions which all of us have asked before umpteen times.
Dave
3 - Baronius
Randall, I think you're trying to get away with an ad for your brand, the Blue State Club, by asking a series of leading questions. We could pursue questions in a different direction:
Have we failed to learn the lessons of Palestine, where militant Islam has shown itself to be barbaric? Isn't security best protected by a heavily-armed, military-trained citizenry? Since Bush policies have prevented a second attack on US soil, shouldn't we permit Bush to run for a third term? Why should we talk about leaving Iraq? Hasn't the military noticed that mosques are often used for hiding weapons and terrorists? Shouldn't we draw the obvious conclusion, and destroy every mosque in Iraq?
I'm not suggesting the answers to any of the above questions, but someone should be asking them. :)
4 - O'Brien
Attention Comrade,
Please visit Ministry of Love to learn more about our creative protest of the Military Commissions Act. We are sending a copy of 1984 to every Congressperson who voted for it.
Regards,
O'Brien
5 - Dave Nalle
O'Brien. Have you actually read the MCA? If you did then you could write an intelligent letter to your Congressman. Perhaps that would be more useful than sending him or her a rather outdated dystopian novel, though I guess you could take 'ignorance is strength' as your personal motto.
Dave
6 - STM
Yeah, nice try mate but what a lot of horseshit. It really pisses me off when people ask these kinds of questions as if there isn't a threat and the war on terror - and not just the fancy name - is just something dreamed up by George Bush as a nice, timely piece of political expediency.
The war on Iraq was something dreamed up by Bush and his mates but the so-called war on terror is something else again. It's important for Americans spouting this nonsense as a bit of political flag waving to do their bloody homework.
The war on terror is not a US thing. It is worlwide. My government and its intelligence and law enforcement agencies and those of dozens of other countries are actively involved in preventing attacks or tracking down terrorists who have committed acts of mass murder, including one that took the lives of 80 Australians in 2002, among them my friend's 15-year-old daughter.
This is the real war on terror, although Bush might have come up with the silly name. So bugger it, yes, there is such a thing and it is very real.
Even as I write, lunatics of a jihadist bent are planning acts of mass murder or are on the run from law enforceement agencies around the WORLD having already done so.
In the wake of 9/11, there have been attacks by al-Qaeda-linked groups in Bali, Jakarta, Madrid, Egypt (targeted at western tourists) and London, most notably. There have been others, though, and others that have been prevented, including plots to blow up jets over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
So for someone of a liberal bent to think this is a great opportunity for a bit of flag waving is in my opinion quite obscene.
Being a supporter of the Labor party in Australia, I would describe myself way left of most Americans who think of themselves as "liberal". However, it doesn't stop me from understanding that this is not an invention. How Americans can believe there is no poblem in the wake of 9/11 and other attacks around the world is beyond me.
Are you really that isloated and uninformed that you don't hear about this other stuff?
For God's sake guys, stop trying to get a free kick out of this. Like many of us, you don't have to be a fan of George Bush to appreciate reality.
And stop worrying about how the rest of the world sees the US. Do what the British did before you: have enough balls to do what needs to be done to protect your own interests and whoever doesn't like it, bugger 'em.
7 - handyguy
STM--
I don't deny the reality of terrorism. I do question whether the strategies and methods the current US government has employed in response have been effective - and whether they might in fact be based on a deliberate distortion [certainly at least an oversimplification] of the real situation.
It's possible that a different approach would have gotten us to a better place than we're in today. I don't know this for certain...but neither do you about your own viewpoint, and that's why I chose to frame the article as a series of questions, tendentious though they may be.
And Dave, as to the fact that some people may have asked similar questions before, even 'umpteen' times...the media certainly haven't pursued them aggressively enough, the government tells us only what it wants to, and too many folks are indifferent and complacent. So maybe it's ok to ask some things repetitively.
Providing glib answers was not my purpose this time out. But I'm sure happy to listen. If that's too tame and boring an approach, well, sorry. I'm sure there will be plenty of loud "answers" to come.
8 - SHARK
STM, we're in a bit of a bind over here in the USA;
YES, there is a worldwide, ongoing fight against Islamic terrorists (aside: to be precise-- terror is a tactic, and one can't really wage a "war" against a tactic), but Bush & Co. took the 9/11 attack and used it opportunistically to ram through many of their own heinous friggin' agendas -- including the broad-brush painting of any opposition as "unpatriotic", etc etc.
Same ol' shit we've seen throughout history: fear used as an opportunistic tool to manipulate "things" and grab/consolidate power. So yeah, just because Bush and The Orwellian Marketing Masters have wrapped themselves in the flag while tryin' to scare the shit outta the mindless ADD-addled American public -- DOESN'T NEGATE the fact that WE ARE facing a threat from Islamic nutbars.
Therefore, some of us (not me, heh) are a bit confused. (I have no illusions about the threat of Islam etc.-- I just think that with Iraq, etc. -- instead of putting out the fire, we doused the motherfucker with gasoline.)
And I might add that a greater, more intelligent/visionary leader would have used the 9/11 event in more UNITING, constructive ways than our little evil, retarded cowboy from Texas did.
That, IMO, is his greatest crime of his administration.
9 - handyguy
I can't tell if the O'Brien post [#4] is some sort of spam, a misfired attempt at humor, or even whether the person is making a favorable or unfavorable comment about my article. Possibly not a distinction worth making.
10 - SHARK
For anyone interested, check out the "liberal" SHARK'S assessment of the Islamic peril-- and why the American Left AND Right have both got it wrong (in various ways). (comment #9)
BTW: I'll be here all week; try the meatloaf!
xxoo
S
11 - SHARK
Dave #2: "...Frankly, I'd prefer one or two interesting and original answers..."
[Shark pictures Nalle preening before a three-way mirror, cracking his knuckles, and then starting to type like Kerouac on crack.]
[Shark sighs, holds vial of Polonium 210 over his own cup of hot-chocolate -- and waits for the Professor to begin...]
12 - STM
Shark wrote: "I just think that with Iraq, etc. -- instead of putting out the fire, we doused the motherfucker with gasoline."
Shark, that's the whole problem ... too many Americans (not you, I assume, judging by the general tone of your rationale) have not been told the truth: that is, that the war IN Iraq has absolutely nothing to with the war ON terror.
They are two totally different things. Bush's problem is that he tried to tie the two together and still does (and now there actually might be a bit of a link in that nutjobs head there from elsewhere to get a free potshot at the US) ...
Whereas, most people realise the original reasoning was a nonsense (although getting rid of Saddam was a good idea, but the planning and the lies weren't). However, there are plenty of other buggers out there still plotting our demise and we need to be on our guard.
Does that mean disbanding such cornerstones of our collective justice systems as the common law writ of Habeus Corpus? No, and places like Guantanamo Bay and the idea of military commissions are a disgrace.
To be done, the law has to be seen to be done, and right now it ain't being seen or done.
Doesn't mean we can't keep hammering away at the bastards though using other means .... my view is that we can use our system of justice to do what needs to be done. Any other approach lessens what we all stand for: free speech, democracy and a fair go for everyone.
13 - Dave Nalle
And Dave, as to the fact that some people may have asked similar questions before, even 'umpteen' times...the media certainly haven't pursued them aggressively enough, the government tells us only what it wants to, and too many folks are indifferent and complacent. So maybe it's ok to ask some things repetitively.
You're counting on the media to ask questions? Good luck with that one. That's not what they do. They tell stories, and they have to be wrapped up in nice little bows with a little moral and nothing which would upset the audience too much or make them miss the next commercial because they're thinking or getting up to call their Congressman.
Dave
14 - Dave Nalle
that is, that the war IN Iraq has absolutely nothing to with the war ON terror.
That may have been true about the intent behind the War in Iraq, but it's certainly not true now. Because of what the war has done to the political situation in the region it is now all about the War on Terror in all sorts of ways. Iraq is where the young Muj are being sent to get trained and live or die to fight elsewhere. It's the proving ground which Afghanistan was under the Russians. It's also become of central interest to the nations which back terrorism. Iran is heavily invested in it and the Saudis of all people just said that they'd intervene if we started to pull out. If it's that significant to the powers which back the terrorists, we've got to take it seriously too.
Dave
15 - Dave Nalle
Re: #10.
Wow, Shark. You actually wrote something that made sense once. Good job.
Dave
16 - STM
Dave wrote: That may have been true about the intent behind the War in Iraq, but it's certainly not true now.
And if you'd read my post properly old boy, you'd realise that's exactly what I wrote.
Bed time for you mate .... getting tired eh??
17 - Zedd
Great post! Interesting questions.
While I understand that we distiguish terrorism from convensional warfare because of its indiscrimanate targeting of civilians. I however have difficulty seeing the difference between what "terrorists" do and what nation states do through war fare to accomplish their goals (for power, control, influence).
When millitary strategies are unfolded there is always an expectation of civilian cassualties. In some cases there is a projected number of civilian cassualties that are anticipated.
If you start a war knowing that you WILL kill innocent civilians as a cost of accomplishig your goal, does that make your actions
terroristic?
If you try and bomb military installations and fail because of your enemies might, then bomb civilians (on purpose) and succeed (which is what terrorist organizations do), does that make your actions more deplorable? If so why?
18 - Zedd
Why should we use Isreal as an example of a country that has done a good job at mantaining peace and providing safety for its citizens?? Isreal is HATED by all of its neighbors and continues to conceive thousands of young daily terrorists because of its policies.
19 - Zedd
Shark:
Who are you and what have you done with Shark?
A thoughtful post. Thank you.
20 - Dave Nalle
Zedd, I think you have a point on the kinship between terrorism and war in general. Terror can be a tool of warfare and a method of making war, certainly. But as a society we define what we find acceptable even in war, and terrorism falls on the wrong side of that line in most cases.
If you start a war knowing that you WILL kill innocent civilians as a cost of accomplishig your goal, does that make your actions
terroristic?
The key difference is between the awareness that civilians will inevitably die in the course of war and the intention to kill civilians as your way of making war. Accepting civilian casualties as part of war is acceptable. Targeting civilians is not.
Dave
21 - troll
but back in the 'real' world targeting civilians in order to demoralize and terrorize them has been a tactic used in every war and the distinction breaks down
war itself is unacceptable
22 - Zedd
Dave:
Thanks. The difference then becomes what you SAY you are doing? Because in essence you are doing the same thing. In other words how paletable you make your actions sound defines how pure your intentions are?
As a person who has inherrited the effects of nuance in coining evil (being non European), I am not impressed by such measures. I actually see such distictions as being inevitably more dangerous. Such "distictions" contribute to the anger which fules "terroristic" acts.
Both endeavors have the goal of killing civilians. Both intend to do so for the "greater good". Neither want to kill innocent people but both see it as a neccessary end.
Its just another way for the powerful to absolve themselves of the evils of their actions; to attach honor to their sometimes horrific actions and to demonize those who want their power. The truth is that war is intended to terrorize.
Off course, I do not support what we have coined as terroristic acts but as one who refuses to be lulled or dummied into accepting the status quo simply because it is as it is. (you have to add such statements in today's climate else you'll be seen as being "a freedom hater" or something silly like that).
I think that that the point of the article, to some degree, is to challange us to "emancipate (ourselves) from mental slavery" by thinking for ourselves.
23 - Zedd
I found it interesting that in Rumsfeilds parting memo of recommendations on the war in Iraq, the first suggestions was to change the manner in which the war is being presented to the public.
It is essential that the public become more informed as apossed to waiting be told by their party heads, what is going on. Its clear that the goal of politicians is to manipulate the masses.
24 - Dr. Kurt
Never belittle the power of questions; the right question at the right time can be far more liberating than any answer. We need to ask these questions, and many more. Here's two more:
Is it OK for an oil company to spend millions of shareholder's dollars to promote a non-existent "controversy" over the science of global warming?
Is violence, except in immediate self-defense, ever not a crime?
25 - Zedd
My question would be, have we exhausted all measures in addressing the concerns of those who strive to terrorize us? Do we feel as if our global status suggests that there are those who share this great planet with us who are much too inferior to ever engage? Is it best to simply attack them then to hear what their concerns are?
We are aware of these organizations as they are developing. We understand where their concerns stem from. Over time their ideas become more radicalized and thus the self fulfilling prophesy...
The fantasy of Iraq was that we were going to attack them then get them to see how good it is to live like us and then get the rest of the nations in that region to want the same and our problems would be over. Part of this mindset comes from the naivety that Westerners, mainly Americans, have about non Whites. This idea is grounded in white supremacist ideology which prevails in our current society (although well disguised.. we like to say "Western").
We ignored the Palestinian issue (the rallying point for most Islamist radical groups and all other, even moderate Muslims). We went to the extent of supporting Israel when they bombed Lebanon and still expected the Muslim world to embrace our way of doing things....ridiculous.
Everyone wants to be treated with respect. No one likes being patronized or manipulated. Doing so goes against a basic human instinct. The smallest toddler reacts to being controlled. We can not deal with people as if they were pieces on a chess board and expect them not to retaliate. I think our experience with African Americans and Native Americans has dulled our senses. We don’t expect people to seriously appose a threat to their existence. We’ve come to believe that destroying people and their way of life is our right if not our calling from God.