E, excellent piece and thanks for posting it.
I particularly like the way it highlights some areas of confused or careless thinking:
- the actions of the Taliban have little or nothing to do with the Palestinian matter. There may be individuals in common, and similarities of style, and maybe mutual learning - like the IRA and ETA. But the causes are different and one hardly helps the other.
- some actions of the US in the (recent) past may have been reprehensible; e.g., the Sudan missiles, presumably designed to destroy a chemicals factory (wrongly, of course). They are nevertheless nothing like the hijacking of civilian aircraft, on suicide runs into purely civilian targets, designed for maximum suffering, death and publicity. The conflation is entirely wrong.
And while the actions of the US may, partially, explain some of the terrorist 'ripostes' - IMO they are nothing like a justification.
And this is exactly right...
This is not an article about grand strategy, but it seems to me to go without saying that a sincere commitment to the secular or reformist elements in the Muslim world would automatically shift the balance of America's engagement. Every day, the wretched Arafat is told by Washington, as a favor to the Israelis, that he must police and repress the forces of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. When did Washington last demand that Saudi Arabia cease its heavy financing of these primitive and unscrupulous organizations? We let the Algerians fight the Islamic-fascist wave without saying a word or lending a hand. And this is an effort in which civic and social organizations can become involved without official permission. We should be building such internationalism whether it serves the short-term needs of the current Administration or no.
Which is better for the US, in the long-term: a prickly, independent democracy or a ruthless dictator who may stay bought? France or Iraq?
And I'd say in recent days, if not before, the Taliban HAVE justified this...
. The Taliban and its surrogates are not content to immiserate their own societies in beggary and serfdom. They are condemned, and they deludedly believe that they are commanded, to spread the contagion and to visit hell upon the unrighteous. The very first step that we must take, therefore, is the acquisition of enough self-respect and self- confidence to say that we have met an enemy and that he is not us, but someone else. Someone with whom coexistence is, fortunately I think, not possible. (I say "fortunately" because I am also convinced that such coexistence is not desirable).
It's the precedent that causes me pause. The removal, by force majeur, of an independent sovereign government, with which you are not explicitly at war: or making war on its territory against elements of its population.
This is very very dangerous.
To take a wild and unpleasant example. The US, and UK, doubtless harbour many Iranian or Iraqi refugees; educated people of democratic leanings, who meet to 'discuss' the overthrow of their home regimes. Some doubtless fund or work for resistance movements (as we might term them). Indeed, the US and UK actively support armed groups trying to topple the Iraqi regime.
Would Iraq, or Iran, therefore be justified in launching attacks on these 'terrorists' - and countries harbouring and supporting them? By any means they can?
And if the only thing stopping them is the brutal fact that they're not strong enough NOW... what when they, or some other, is?
China may be 'justified' in taking over Taiwan... by this light, and in its eyes...
Britain, of course, can launch military strikes and snatch squads on Irish territory right now. The terrorists are without doubt at war with the UK: hey, they call themselves an army, they kill our soldiers, they've bombed our government... what more do we need? We've got the men, the proof of aiding and harbouring terrorists and actively supporting their aims, and they're not strong enough to stop us.
Thinking about it, go right ahead against the Taleban. <vbg>
Seriously, I'm in favour of decisive and extremely violent action against Bin Laden, his groupies and the Taleban. But I'm not convinced that it's wise. Get the UN go-ahead: if the Taleban aren't extreme and isolated enough, then no one ever will be.
Unilateral action (OK, with some UK help and maybe token assistance from elsewhere in NATO) sets exactly the wrong imprimatur for others. |
