So it seems there's no power that exists to oppose the US with any force. Or is there?
That's where the internet comes in. Hundreds of thousands of voices, expressing either dissent or reservation to the US position, could have an enormous impact. That is, if the US government listened to it. And that simply isn't happening. It's not a single voice, and it's not in one agreement. But it's a global network of influence and counter-influence, and for that reason it's always worth gauging the zeitgeist of the internet.
That is what Bush has not done. Well, what do you expect? He's a tv president. He's a master at playing the traditional media. That would have worked in '91, when the Gulf war actually turned CNN correspondents into stars. But it's a new millennium, and the world's leaders, opinion-makers, and influencers are online. This is where it's at. And the fact that Bush has blithely ignored the internet will cost him. Maybe not today... but eventually. Perhaps when Kurdistan has become a second Palestine.
Article comments
1 - Tom
The problem with the internet,and bloggers in particular, is that it represents a clique of sorts. Because not everyone has access to computers, because not everyone who gets online blogs, those that do tend to fall into a specific political schema. Most of the bloggers I read are against the war, but their numbers do not reflect the reality of the public. Bloggers just tend to feel the need to express their feelings, and if they oppose something it feels like everyone feels the same way. In reality, the bloggers represent a very small number of people in the US and especially the world. Our opinions may mean a lot to other bloggers, but they mean very little to the general public, and therefore, to the government.