« Truth, Beauty, and Graphic Design | Main | Le Chat Noir »
Beyond the Valley of the Bush Doctrine
How do you construct an argument to counter the Bush Doctrine? (con't)
Posted by faux real on July 2, 2004 at 03:46 AM | Permalink
Comments
Many, though not all, opinions exist among the barflies about ways to deal with the current situation in the world regarding the threat of terrorism.
If you think that Al Qaeda is still in the employ of the Bush League, or some other Forbidden Truth, or the muscle for The Carlyle Group this question may be moot...to some degree.
If you think that total war, as "anonymous" has written and talked about, is the answer...again...this question may not be for you.
However, maybe you think that terrorism is a problem that must be dealt with by intelligence and police work,
...and maybe by some threat of force, or perhaps the use of force (as in what some of us think should have happened in Afghanistan, instead of what did)
...or maybe you don't believe this, or maybe you also agree with Emmanuel Todd and think that demographic change will create more equitable govts with fewer incentives for terrorists (of course, getting to a future for that to happen is another question, to me)
...or maybe you have some other way of looking at solutions to the current instability in the world...instability that is also within the US because of the power of the Tali-born-agains.
So, with these issues in mind (and feel free to include others that are relevant), how do you construct a good argument about ways to deal with terrorism that can work better than what we have now?
What are the sources for your argument? Where have you seen such tactics prove effective? What historical precedents might provide some guidance for the current world situation?
I think that most people agree that the cold war example of mutually assured destruction is only somewhat effective when a group embraces martyrdom as an effective strategy, and when people are not officially acting as agents of a state.
I ask this question because, as was said in relation to another issue, what you are against is not the only issue. What you are for is the next step when you want to discuss this issue with people who believe that "everything changed" after 9/11, and that the Bush Doctrine is the right action/policy.
Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 2, 2004 3:48:44 AM
faux real
not much time to post, I'll just link for the time being to the post a wrote a few weeks back on the topic - to be found here (mostly dealing with the link with between our oil policies and Islamic terrorism. Also this, a brief text on French police work against terrorism.
Posted by: Jérôme | Jul 2, 2004 4:03:04 AM
Bush Doctrine? More like Bush Incompetence.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 2, 2004 4:08:31 AM
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 2, 2004 4:53:23 AM
What else can one expect? I blame those at the top: this whitewash is probably an effort of the "regular army" to try to
show a bit of "loyalty downward" to those who are slated to be scapegoated for doing just what Bush-Rumsfeld wanted done, getting the message even without explicit orders. The war crimes trials should have Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in the dock, not (or not only) the material
perpetrators of the crimes.
Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Jul 2, 2004 5:12:04 AM
Another good scathing article (but really frightening) from Chris Floyd in the Moscow Times
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 2, 2004 5:17:40 AM
fauxreal - The whole world is watching us now to see what we do. At this point, a studied and complete reversal of everything bush has "accomplished" would show the world the extent of our good intentions. We will have to reach out to the world community to develop a unified plan to deal with the terrorist. If we can't figure out how to work hard together nothing will happen. It is everyone's problem now.
Posted by: beq | Jul 2, 2004 6:45:31 AM
Helluva article by Chris Floyd, Cloned. Thanks for the link.
Posted by: Pat | Jul 2, 2004 6:57:30 AM
JK Rowling has released the title of the sixth book in her bestselling series.
The book will be called Harry Potter and the Half-Cocked Prince. The story follows student wizard Harry Potter on his first trip outside Britain. Potter and his chums, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, are forced to visit the land of Texus where they must confront the most powerful man in the world, George the Dwarf, a strange, glazed-eyed and stammering manchild who, despite the fact that he inherited every advantage, and enjoyed the support of the entire civilised world after a series of attacks on his wondrous kingdom, has squandered that goodwill and made himself an international pariah, feared and mocked in equal measure. Instead of responding to the problems at hand, George the Dwarf has gone off on a series of half-cocked adventures at home and abroad designed to cement his rule by distracting his people from the real problem.
Harry's task is to find the one man in Texus who can assume George's throne and restore the kingdom to its former glory. It is no small task. Author Rowling admits she has not worked out at this stage how the book ends and says, "It's just too scary to contemplate." Other new characters include the silver-tongued royal adviser, Karl the Giant, and the evil Chain Dickey.
"Dickey is the real power behind the throne," confides Rowling. "Part of his power comes from the fact that you never see him, are never quite sure where he is. But he pulls the strings. He's the creepiest character I've yet invented. In fact, he may be the creepiest character in all of fiction. I'm pretty sure he'll meet a nasty end."
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 2, 2004 7:07:45 AM
NPR's reading of the Declaration of Independence stopped me in my tracks this morning. These days the document has special meaning.
Two hundred twenty-eight years ago, the Continental Congress adopted Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence. On July 4th, 1776, George III, king of England, wrote in his diary, "Nothing of importance happened today."
Wonder if our george the II has ever read it.
Posted by: beq | Jul 2, 2004 8:11:54 AM
@Cloned Poster:
Appears to me you need a literary agent.
Have a few connections in Bollywood, still.
Old Gurdana Khan started buying up theatre chains just before he croaked. His son is busy making movies.
If you want to take this thing to China, still got a few connections there too.
Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 2, 2004 9:01:19 AM
@FLASHHARRY
I plagiarigized it.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 2, 2004 9:16:16 AM
beq,
I too was moved by listening to NPR on way to work this AM. And thought of similarities to now - "he has raised standing armies" - yes, there are many differences, but our George II seems to want to raise the military to be beyond the civil power. I do feel he has more affinity to the practices of the Crown than he does to the ideal of "the consent of the governed" - I know a lot of governed who do not give him their consent!
Posted by: francoise | Jul 2, 2004 9:22:53 AM
francoise,
I came in in the middle and wasn't sure what I was listening to at first. When I got to work I went to NPR to read it and was struck by so many things, for instance:
"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
I ended up with three highlighted pages of this is now. I see a split screen with the Declaration scrolling on one side and tapes of his various statements, wishing he had a dictatorship on the other side. Breathtaking.
Posted by: beq | Jul 2, 2004 9:43:45 AM
Posted and edited by x174 on Le Speakeasy thread but bears a repetition here (x174 simply replaced the name of Saddam Hussein with that of dear leader in response at press conference):
MR. McCLELLAN: No, Kate. Like I said, George Bush is going to say all sorts of things. What's important is that justice is being served to George Bush and his band of oppressors by the Iraqi people in an Iraqi court. George Bush's regime was responsible for the systematic terrorizing, torture, killing and raping of innocent Iraqis. George Bush's regime was responsible for grave atrocities against the Iraqi people.
...if only.
Posted by: beq | Jul 2, 2004 10:22:27 AM
A Marlon Brando thread anyone?
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 2, 2004 11:15:22 AM
I see a split screen with the Declaration scrolling on one side and tapes of his various statements, wishing he had a dictatorship on the other side"
2 days from Now, I wouldn't be surprised to find this in some Bar - unless he already did it last year.
Brando thread: Why not? There'll probably be some posts in various thread, whatever happens.
Posted by: Cluless Joe | Jul 2, 2004 11:24:06 AM
Centcom release re WMD
Release Number: 04-07-05
IRAQ ROCKETS FOUND IN LATE JUNE TEST NEGATIVE FOR CHEMICALS
Baghdad, Iraq - On June 16, 2004, an Iraqi civilian led Polish Soldiers to two 122mm rockets he had found in Al Hillah.
The rounds were tested and showed positive for Sarin gas. It has been determined that the rounds were left over from the Iran-Iraq war.
Due to the deteriorated state of the rounds and small quantity of remaining agent, these rounds were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against Coalition Forces.
The source led Soldiers to 16 more 122mm rockets over a period from June 23 - 26, 2004. Those 16 rounds were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals.
For the trolls if you need it. Pity the whores at the BBC didn't report this.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 2, 2004 11:32:55 AM
On the Declaration of Independence, I found the following pretty spooky.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
Which "George" are we talking about here?
Posted by: Dan of Steele | Jul 2, 2004 11:47:17 AM
Brando - At least there is a reason for flags to be at half-mast now. ;-)
Posted by: beq | Jul 2, 2004 11:50:31 AM
from Ireland Online report on Brando - "he sent them faxes from his dog, Doctor Tim". What a great way to respond! they left out his part in the film Don Juan de Marco with Johnny Depp, however ...
Posted by: francoise | Jul 2, 2004 12:03:05 PM
Dan of Steele:
Deja vu all over again. How about this?
"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."
Energy task force?
or
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."
Department of Homeland Security? Cointelpro?
or
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"
Huh???
Posted by: beq | Jul 2, 2004 12:16:44 PM
Well, I guess Hamdi and Padilla weren't physically transported but it is spooky.
Posted by: beq | Jul 2, 2004 12:21:03 PM
I would say that, first of all, asking how to "combat terrorism" may be the wrong question.
For three reasons:
1) terrorism may be a symptom, not a cause;
2) the cure may be worse than the disease.
3) the answer may not be either-or, it may not be a single thing.
Each of these points lends itself to endless pontification, and each would make, at the very least, a great Billmon post. I would say only this:
1) In my opinion, the ultimate cause of terrorism is a set of values that elevate ends over means. These values exist on all sides of the conflict. For example, certain amoral behaviors by the powerful in turn foster a sense of helpless rage in the powerless, which in turn justify amoral behavior on their part. That, of course, is just one of the dynamics at play, here.
2) I am always bemused by those who gladly send cannon fodder to be mowed down overseas for vague imperialist adventures, yet would rather lose essential freedoms and rights here than tolerate a single domestic casualty. In the spirit of Ben Franklin, I would rather accept inevitable losses from terrorism (which we can't stop 100% anyway, look at the Israelis and how much they have given up for no real security), than give up my essential freedoms, only to end up with neither freedom nor security.
Terrorists have a goal; it is either just terror for the sake of disruption and vengeance and/or achieving anarchy, or (more commonly and, strongly arguably in the case of al Qaeda), to achieve by popular pressure a specific geopolitical goal, such as getting the US out of the Middle East, or destabilizing an authoritarian government, to replace it with a specific alternative, such as an Islamist government.
Therefore, if one seeks to thwart terrorism, one should take actions that do not support those goals. Restricting domestic freedoms and limiting the exercise of very things that make us unique is doing the terrorists' work for them; continue to live our lives freely, while acknowledging the inevitable losses from violence, thwarts those aims.
Similarly, every time the Israelis suspend peace talks after a terrorist attack, they are merely supporting the agenda of the terrorists, which is to suspend peace talks.
And every time the US attacks an Arab country, for whatever reason, it plays into the hands of al Qaeda. I don't think even people on the left here really, deeply, profoundly understand the implication of what we have done in Iraq. As a direct result of our actions there, tens of thousands of people will die over the coming decades, hundreds of thousands maimed, millions of lives permanently disrupted. There will be many thousands of American deaths and tens of thousands maimed - and I am not talking about military casualties, I'm talking about civilian victims of terrorism. And I am not talking above and beyond the casualties we would have already had from existing terrorism prior to the Iraqi invasion.
In addition, millions of Arabs will come under the harsh rule of Islamist government, and generations will be destroyed - and, again, I am talking about effects beyond those already in place prior to Iraq, I am talking about additional effects directly attributed to Iraq.
That is only the beginning, the ripples spread outward. As a direct result of our actions to date, America will become a far, far less free country - in fact, I can see several plausible near-term scenarios under which America will cease to be anything like the country it is today.
In otherwords, the actions of the Bush administration may, historically, be seen as leading directly to the demise of our republic. And the actions of the Kerry administration, should one emerge, may not be enough to change that dynamic, even if they were perfect, and we know they will not be perfect. Just less worse than Bush.
None of this condones or excuses 9/11 or any act of terrorism. But we cannot control what others do, we can only control what we do. Our response to terrorism will either make or break us, not anything they do. So far, we have done virtually everything wrong that we possibly could do wrong, and little right.
3) All of the above, even if I were utterly correct, and that is unlikely, may not be it. One of the greatest difficulties in having these conversations in the West is our obssession with binary solutions. It is either this or that, Us or Them, good or bad, right or wrong.
We have little tolerance for "and", but the answers we seek may all be of the "and" kind.
Posted by: galiel | Jul 2, 2004 12:34:13 PM
I haven't learned links (not today please) but Avedon Carol at Sideshow must have been thinking along same lines - she has a great T-shirt for Bill of Rights 2004 - Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft has the link. I live near two bases, one AirForce, the other Air Natl Guard, so I note the "standing armies" - they're my countrymen/women but it's beginning to look more like the Third World than the US I remember ...
Posted by: francoise | Jul 2, 2004 12:34:44 PM
