Terror

[poliphilo]

We've been sold a lie.

There is no Al Quaida.

I mean, if there was a big, scary, SPECTRE-like, terrorist organisation lurking in the shadows waiting to get us, it would have managed another hit against the US mainland in the years since 9/11.

There are terrorists, sure- but they're not centrally organised or well-armed or particularly smart. They're capable of one-off attacks on soft targets- as in Madrid and London.

Consider that last- aborted- attack on the London underground. One of the guys- the one the Italians are holding- has said the bombs were never meant to go off. I don't know whether he's lying or telling the truth, but either way his gang were a Mickey Mouse outfit.

I don't want to down-play the danger. There have been bombs and there will be more bombs, but this isn't World War III. We're not up against a Big Enemy, we're up against a scattered bunch of stupid, idealistic young men, all fired up by the same stupid, fascistic ideology.

It's one for the police, not the military.

But the lie about Al Quaida, complicated by further lies about WMDs and the politics of the Middle East, has landed us in an illegal and unwinnable war that is simply stengthening the stupid, fascistic ideology that inspires the stupid, idealistic young men.

Comments

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

There are terrorists, sure- but they're not centrally organised or well-armed or particularly smart. They're capable of one-off attacks on soft targets- as in Madrid and London.

It's not World War III, it's another Vietnam. How many one-off attacks like the WTC does it take to make a national leader Very Very Nervous. I'm pretty sure the answer is one. And when national leaders are Very Very Nervous, they go to war, even against a phantom, because their inventory of options is limited. For me, that's much more a problem than the attacks.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Politicians- like generals- are always fighting the last war. This present bunch are still thinking in Cold War terms.

The Al Quaida network isn't something that can be defeated by tanks and bombs. It's a different kind of enemy.

[darlax.livejournal.com]

Have you read Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies? I thought it was a great book offering insight not only into how we got to where we are, but also, how we misstepped after 9/11. I think he is fair in his assessments, backs up his arguments, and doesn't linger too long on blame.

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

My husband, who served in Vietnam, remains firmly of the opinion that the military of the U.S. and Southeast Asia were winning the war until the journalists turned the U.S. against the military effort.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

That's interesting.

My opinions on Vietnam are inevitably second and third hand, so I'm not going to preume to debate the issue with someone who was actually there.

But it's my impression that the weight of opinion is on the other side.

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

I will have to dig to locate it, and I'm not up for it at the moment, but I read that a highly placed North Vietnamese military official said they were losing the military war and all that saved them was the press coverage turning the tide of U.S. opinion. That's a pretty heavy weight-of-opinion on my husband's side, if it isn't an urban legend.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I seem to remember someone saying of Vietnam that the USA won all the battles but lost the war- or something along those lines.

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

This was different. This was a *North Vietnamese military official* saying that they were losing the war in Vietnam but we lost the U.S. homefront. I may have to go look for it.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested to know what exactly he said....

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

Me, too, and I haven't been successful googling it up. Full disclosure, I may have had it via a columnist who put a spin on it.

One of the things about these conversations that I think is so important: we need to read and, more importantly, listen to, folks on the other side. Otherwise, we get a variant of the "cult" effect -- we talk only to people who think like us, and we get reality drift.

I might re-name that the "Cindy Sheehan" effect in that she is now saying that George Bush is the bloodiest tyrant in history (or comparable rhetoric). Now, one might call George Bush any number of things, but saying that he's worse than Hitler, Stalin et al. is a bit of a stretch. We're getting reality drift in that no one around her seems to be suggesting that she keep her rhetoric a little more reality-based.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I entirely agree.

I value these exchanges we have. And I admire your courtesy. It's good to be able to air political differences without getting into a shouting match.

I'm aware that I mainly get my information from sources with a leftish bias- like the Guardian newspaper and Truthout.

I don't like George Bush- but, no, he's not "the bloodiest tyrant in history" or anything like. It's silly to go down that road.

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the kind words. I get my morning news from the Wall Street Journal (dismissed as right wing propaganda by some, but it's no coincidence that Danny Pearl was the first reporter whose throat was cut). I also get it from the Philadelphia Inquirer, which this morning used the tragedy of Katrina as the launch pad for a rant about the "silent flood" of uninsured who are being tortured by the Republicans' dont-care attitude. Living as I do in a neighborhood where 95% of residents don't share my views, I'm used to listening and trying to be reasonable in response.

Lstening to the way my neighbors vituperate George Bush et al., I've learned to temper my pronouncements on the policies of folk such as Ted Kennedy. Belittling these folks may make me feel better but it won't encourage folks to listen to what I have to say.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

That's it.

There's too much shouting and name-calling in politics these days and it's one of the things that alienates people. Democracy is a precious thing and in order to sustain it we have to have public debate which is about more than scoring points off the opposition. Otherwise reasonable people turn away in disgust and leave the arena to the moonbats.

(I love that word "moonbats"- thank you for teaching it me.)

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

(It's "barking moonbats" -- you need the "barking" to get the full flavor.)