From: Progressive Response [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 8:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FPIF Statement, Afghanistan, Pakistan
************************************************************************
Click http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume5/v5n31.html to view an
HTML-formatted version of this issue of Progressive Response.
************************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response 19 September 2001 Vol. 5, No.
31
Editor: Tom Barry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response (PR) is a weekly service of Foreign Policy in
Focus (FPIF)--a "Think Tank Without Walls." A joint project of the
Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies, FPIF
is an international network of analysts and activists dedicated to "making
the U.S. a more responsible global leader and partner by advancing citizen
movements and agendas." We encourage responses to the opinions expressed in
the PR and may print them in the "Letters and Comments" section. For more
information on FPIF and joining our network, please consider visiting the
FPIF website at http://www.fpif.org/.
**** We Count on Your Support ****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Updates and Out-Takes
*** RESPONSE TO TERRORISM: TIME FOR A PROGRESSIVE RESPONSE ***
*** FPIF CONFLICT PROFILE: AFGHANISTAN ***
By Jim Lobe and Abid Aslam
*** DON'T BOMB AFGHANISTAN ***
By Stephen Zunes
II. Outside the U.S.
*** PAKISTAN'S DAY OF RECKONING ***
By Najum Mushtaq
III. Letters and Comments
*** AMERICA'S MELTING POT AND GLOBAL RESPONSE ***
*** STRIKES AND CASH ***
*** EXACTLY MY POINT ***
*** GLOBALIZING ARAB WORLD ***
*** DUMBFOUNDED ***
*** SHOCKING BUT NOT SURPRISING ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Updates and Out-Takes
*** RESPONSE TO TERRORISM: TIME FOR A PROGRESSIVE RESPONSE ***
(Editor's Note: FPIF is a self-described "think tank without walls," but
it's not only its electronic networking of foreign policy analysts that
defines its character. Although we are dedicated to providing timely and
high-quality foreign policy analysis, FPIF is also an activist network.
Critiquing and prescribing policy are not enough to "make the U.S. a more
responsible global leader and global partner," which is FPIF's mission.
Mobilization is also necessary. One small step you can take--please do this
tonight or tomorrow--is to sign on to the FPIF statement, included below,
that will be presented to policymakers and the media. The statement, along
with instructions for sign-ons by scholars, foreign policy advocates, and
FPIF experts, is at: http://www.fpif.org/form_terrorsignon.html.)
The following sign-on letter was drawn up by Foreign Policy In Focus
(FPIF), a joint project of the Institute for Policy Studies and the
Interhemispheric Resource Center. We are circulating it as widely as
possible, particularly to foreign policy experts and academics. Please
IMMEDIATELY sign it, send it in, and pass it on. We will release it to the
press and send it to Bush administration officials and members of Congress.
Deadline: Midnight (EST) Thursday, September 20. (If military action hasn't
started by then, we may extend the deadline.)
1. America is living through a tragedy of unprecedented depth. As a nation
and as a people we have witnessed and suffered a horrific crime, and we
call for a strong international response. This was a crime against
humanity. America's response must be deliberate and determined, and it must
uphold our highest moral principles and international norms of conduct.
2. This response must seek justice, not revenge. Our collective response
must root out the international terrorism networks responsible for these
attacks, not fan the flames of yet more terror.
3. We stand opposed to the massive, widespread, and prolonged military
response, as foreshadowed by the militaristic language of the Bush
administration officials. Such posturing will not end terrorism. Rather,
such a response is likely to result in more civilian casualties, cause
greater political violence, and engender new acts of terrorism against
innocent people.
4. Instead of waging the first major war of the new century, the U.S.
people and government should assert our determination to protect ourselves
and all peoples against the threat of terrorism by doing the following in
the international arena:
* Forge a new global alliance against terrorism, linking our traditional
allies with such disparate nations as Russia and China, to quickly bring
together intelligence, police, and military agencies in an effort to
identify, pursue, and bring to justice the terrorist networks.
* Use international police action and international tribunals as the
preferred method for tracking down, capturing, and trying international
criminals. As the recent case of Slobodan Milosevic illustrates, the world
community has made remarkable progress in creating and using international
norms to prosecute international crimes against humanity.
* Organize strong international economic and diplomatic pressure against
the governments of any nation found to be supporting or harboring
international terrorists.
5. At home, we must also act deliberately, strategically, and humanely.
Adopting a siege mentality and embracing the politics of war will carry new
risks for America. Instead, we should do the following:
* Seek to maintain America's hallowed traditions of open government and
open society.
* Avoid eroding the basic civil liberties that define this nation.
* Resist efforts to target people because of their race, religion, ethnic
background, or appearance.
* Act with great care before expanding the powers and budgets of our
national security agencies. Congress needs a thorough and independent
investigation into why and how these terrorist networks succeeded in
operating with impunity, even within the United States. Before handing over
sweeping new powers and billions of dollars to our intelligence agencies
and the military, we must first understand why existing U.S. intelligence
practices, defense strategies, and post-cold war foreign policy have proved
so inadequate in protecting the American people.
Unleashing vengeance through overwhelming U.S. firepower will prove an
ineffective and counterproductive response to this new scourge of
international terrorism. A "crusade," as President Bush terms it, of
American bombers and battleships invading the Islamic world will
demonstrate our military might, but it will diminish any chance of finding,
dismantling, and punishing these terrorist networks.
We seek victory over these international terrorists. Part of this victory
will be measured by the number of terrorists brought to justice, the number
of their financial links severed, and shattering direct or indirect support
for terrorist organizations. But the greater part of victory will come
through our government addressing the policies, circumstances, and
grievances that spark terrorist responses, particularly against America.
Otherwise, for every terrorist network broken, another will take its place.
Only if our response is shaped by wisdom and conviction, will we be able to
claim both victory and peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** AFGHANISTAN: AN ENEMY FOR OUR TIMES ***
(Editor's Note: This rugged country has for the past two decades been the
focus of both big power politics (U.S. use of Islamic warriors as
surrogates against the Soviet-occupied countryin the 1980s) and of the new
national politics of ethnic and religious conflict. The attacks on the
World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon have again projected Afghanistan
into the sights of the remaining superpower. As part of its
Self-Determination and Governance project, FPIF is examining ethnic,
religious, and nationalist conflicts throughout the world with a particular
view to finding appropriate governance solutions. Included below is an
excerpt from our new conflict profile on Afghanistan, which provides an
overview of the highly topical ethnic, religious, and political issues in
this country that may soon be under U.S. attack. The entire profile, along
with an array of useful links for more information, can be found at FPIF's
Self-Determination In Focus page:
http://www.fpif.org/selfdetermination/index.html.)
*** FPIF CONFLICT PROFILE: AFGHANISTAN ***
By Jim Lobe and Abid Aslam
In late 1994, the Taliban, a Pakistan-backed militia consisting of Pashtun
Islamic fundamentalists, launched operations along the Pakistani border,
sweeping westward until it finally captured Kabul in September 1996. In
1998, it extended its control when it seized Mazar Sharif from
predominantly Uzbek and Hazara Shiite forces in the Northern Alliance and
reportedly massacred thousands of residents. In November 1998, the UN
Security Council imposed economic sanctions against the Taliban for its
refusal to turn over Osama bin Laden in connection with attacks on U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
In March 1999, the United Nations brokered a ceasefire between the Taliban
and the remaining Northern Alliance forces under Ahmed Shah Massoud, an
ethnic Tajik, but fighting resumed in July. In December 2000, the Security
Council imposed a ban on arms sales to the Taliban.
A combination of crippling drought, shortfalls in humanitarian aid, and
continued international isolation compounded by the Taliban's destruction
of Buddhist statues throughout Afghanistan contributed to growing hunger
and a new outflow of refugees. In September 2001, tensions mounted sharply
after Massoud, the Northern Alliance's chief military commander, was
assassinated, and senior U.S. officials suggested military action against
Bin Laden and the Taliban in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World
Trade Center towers in New York and the Pentagon outside Washington, DC.
** Ethnic Profile
Pashtuns (also known as Pathans): 38% of the population; concentrated in
the eastern and southern part of the country, but also with a strong
presence in Kabul.
Tajiks: 25% of the population; concentrated in the northeast and in the
west around Herat.
Hazars: 19% of the population; concentrated in the central mountains and
along the border with Iran.
Uzbeks: 6% of the population; concentrated in the north along the border
with Uzbekistan.
In linguistic terms, more than 65% of the people speak Pashto, the language
of the Pashtuns, while the rest of the population speaks Dari and related
languages.
** Main Actors
Taliban: Led by a council of ultra-orthodox Sunni Muslim clerics headed by
Mullah Muhammad Umar in Kandahar, the Taliban are overwhelmingly Pashtuns
from rural areas of Afghanistan, many of whom were mujahedin or were
refugees in western Pakistan during the Soviet occupation. Now in control
of more than 90% of Afghanistan's territory, the Taliban's strict rule and
its harboring of Osama bin Laden (who, according to some reports, is
married to Umar's daughter) and his associates have alienated much of the
international community.
Northern Alliance or United Front for Afghanistan: The opposition coalition
made up of major elements of the mujahedin alliance that forced the Soviet
withdrawal and ousted President Najibullah in 1992, as well as some
ethnic-based elements of the Najibullah regime. They include:
Islamic Society: Headed by former President Burhannudin Rabbani and, until
his assassination in September 2001, military chief Ahmed Shah Massoud,
this faction is predominantly Tajik and controls the Panjshir Valley and
other areas in northern Afghanistan. Ismail Khan, another legendary
mujahedin commander who was governor of Heart Province from 1992 until 1995
and escaped from a Taliban prison last year, could emerge as the faction's
new leader.
National Islamic Movement of Afghanistan: Led by Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostam,
who served under Najibullah before helping broker his ouster, this group is
predominantly Uzbek. Its control has been sharply reduced to small areas
along the border with Uzbekistan since Taliban forces captured its
headquarters at Mazar Sharif in August 1998.
Unity Party (Hizb-e-Wahdat): Although split into two major factions since
1995, this group represents most Hazara Shiite Muslims traditionally
concentrated in Afghanistan's western Herat province and central Bamiyan
province, from which hundreds of thousands of residents have been displaced
by fighting and drought in recent years.
** U.S. Role
After the Soviet invasion in 1979, the U.S. focused its efforts on
supporting the mujahedin with a massive, $3-billion covert aid program
channeled mostly through Pakistani military intelligence. It included
primarily military equipment, including sophisticated weaponry such as
scores of shoulder-fired "Stinger" anti-aircraft missiles. While Washington
continued to back the mujahedin after the Soviet withdrawal, its policy
objectives became more multifaceted. These included ending the conflict and
restoring stability; eradicating the opium crop; retrieving the Stingers;
removing landmines; and preventing the export of arms and the mujahedin's
militant Islamist ideology to neighboring countries.
Since shortly after the Taliban seized Kabul, relations with Washington
have become increasingly problematic. Washington has spoken out forcefully
against the Taliban's treatment of women and girls, its interference with
foreign aid operations, and its sheltering of Bin Laden, who reportedly
helped recruit Afghan Arabs in the final months of the Taliban's offensive.
Washington has also pressured the Taliban regime to close down suspected
training camps of Bin Laden's, which were the targets of several dozen
cruise missiles launched by America in retaliation for the 1998 embassy
bombings in East Africa. Shortly afterward, Unocal, the California-based
energy company, abandoned a proposed mega-project to build oil and gas
pipelines from Central Asia through western Afghanistan to Pakistan. In
1997, Washington added Afghanistan to its list of state sponsors of
terrorism, and in 1999 imposed sweeping sanctions, including a freeze on
all Taliban assets in the U.S. and a ban on U.S. trade with
Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan. Some kind of military attack
against Afghanistan is considered highly likely in the wake of the
September 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
On the multilateral front, Washington has supported efforts since 1994 by a
succession of UN mediators--most recently Francesc Vendrell--and others to
negotiate a cease-fire and the creation of broad-based government. It has
also participated in the so-called "Six Plus Two" process established in
1997 to support UN peace efforts. That forum includes six of Afghanistan's
neighbors--China, Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan--as well as Russia and America. At the same time, it has joined
Moscow in cosponsoring Security Council resolutions imposing travel,
diplomatic, economic, and arms sanctions against the Taliban.
** Proposed Solutions and Evaluation of Prospects
Almost all efforts to end hostilities in Afghanistan have been channeled
through the United Nations, bolstered by the Six Plus Two process initiated
in 1997 after key external states agreed informally to observe an arms
embargo against all Afghan factions. The UN's efforts have been geared in
the first instance to achieving a sustainable cease-fire, but, aside from
the two-month cease-fire achieved in 1999 by UN Special Envoy Lakhdar
Brahimi, this has proved impossible.
Although all factions agreed at that time to a process leading to a
coalition government, the cease-fire broke down after the Taliban made a
series of demands, including that its ultra-orthodox interpretation of
Islamic rule become the law of the land and that opposition armies be
integrated into the Taliban's militia forces. In 1997, the Taliban proposed
that a religious council (ulema) be established to resolve the conflict,
but it coupled the proposal with demands similar to those made two years
later.
The Intra-Afghan Dialogue was launched in 1997 by internal groups,
including former mujahedin commanders, who have not taken sides in the war
between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. This effort was supported by
the Rome-based former king, Zahir Shah, who has called for a permanent
government to be established by convening a traditional "loya jirga," or
council of notables. Called the ''Rome Process'' since 1999 when Dialogue
representatives met with the king, the effort gained a statement of support
from the U.S. administration in May 2000, but most analysts believe that
the participants lack the clout necessary to bring the warring factions to
the table.
The elimination of Massoud, according to observers, could have been a fatal
blow to the Northern Alliance, given his stature and the role he played in
keeping the coalition together. But his assassination has been overshadowed
by the U.S. reaction to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington,
leaving the Taliban in a defensive crouch, unable to mount a new offensive
in the north.
(Jim Lobe <[log in to unmask]> and Abid Aslam <[log in to unmask]> are
contributing editors with Foreign Policy In Focus as well as editors with
Inter Press Service in Washington, DC.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** DON'T BOMB AFGHANISTAN ***
By Stephen Zunes
(Excerpted from an FPIF Global Affairs Commentary, posted in its entirety
at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0109afghanwar.html.)
To fight international terrorism requires international cooperation. The
U.S. needs the active support of Muslim countries to track down and break
up Bin Laden's terrorist cells, which exist well beyond the borders of
Afghanistan. Precipitous military action could threaten the unity needed to
deal with this very real threat. A large-scale military response would
distract world attention away from the crimes of this past Tuesday where it
belongs and onto the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the American
attack.
There is an enormous irony if the U.S. goes to war against the Taliban
government of Afghanistan, given that the U.S. played a major role in
bringing these Islamic extremists to power. Indeed, the Central
Intelligence Agency trained Bin Laden and many of his followers in Afghan
refugee camps in Pakistan during the 1980s. One of the reasons that he has
such a far-flung multinational network is that the CIA actively recruited
radical Muslims from throughout Central Asia, the Middle East, and North
Africa to join the Afghan mujahadin in their fight against Soviet forces
and their puppet regime in Kabul.
If there is any logic to the terrorists' madness, it is to have the U.S.
over-react and turn large segments of the Islamic world against the West.
To launch a major military operation against Afghanistan would play right
into Osama bin Laden's hands.
(Stephen Zunes <[log in to unmask]> is an associate professor of politics and
chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San
Francisco. He serves as a senior policy analyst and Middle East editor for
the Foreign Policy in Focus Project.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Outside the U.S.
(FPIF has a new component called "Outside the U.S.," which aims to bring
non-U.S. voices into the U.S. policy debate and to foster dialog between
Northern and Southern actors in global affairs issues. Please visit our
Outside the U.S. page for other non-U.S. perspectives on global affairs and
for information about submissions at:
http://www.fpif.org/outside/index.html.)
*** PAKISTAN'S DAY OF RECKONING ***
By Najum Mushtaq
(Excerpted from a new Outside the U.S. Commentary, posted at:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0109pakistan.html.)
The Tuesday tragedy in the U.S. is already having a profound impact on
Pakistan. The apocalypse in the U.S. has forced upon the Pakistani ruling
elite its day of reckoning sooner than it had anticipated. The Pakistan
military, which is also running the government here since October 1999, now
has to choose clearly and unequivocally between a direct confrontation with
the militant religious groups--and there are dozens of them--and the wrath
of a wounded and angry America.
President General Pervez Musharraf, whose son lives and works in the U.S.
and who makes no secret of his liberal inclinations, was quick to join the
rest of the world in condemning the suicide attacks. He appeared himself on
the national television network to promise Washington his government's full
cooperation in the manhunt. None of it was surprising. After all, the
Pakistan military has been a staunch ally of the U.S. since as far back as
the 1950s. They have, of course, fought wars together. The military has
always relied heavily on U.S. administrations--both in terms of material
support as well as backing for its domestic political role.
But, at the same time, the mainstay of the military's politics within
Pakistan is the Kashmir issue, which is portrayed not as a territorial
dispute with India but as an ideological and religious conflict. Pakistan
has never denied providing "diplomatic, political, and moral" support to
the "freedom fighters" in Kashmir. It is part of general public knowledge,
though, that the Pakistan military's links with the militants in Kashmir
run much deeper. Even General Musharraf has said many times that, "jihad
(the freedom struggle) in Kashmir and terrorism must be differentiated."
Almost all fighter groups, especially the orthodox Sunni factions, look up
to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban as their inspiration. Most of them owe
their origins to the Afghan jihad. Pakistan's Kashmir policy depends on
their support. In fact, jihadi groups are considered prized instruments in
pursuit of Pakistan's strategic objectives, i.e. a favorable settlement of
the Kashmir dispute. The military standoff with India in 1999, when
mujahedin and Pakistani soldiers occupied the strategic hills of Kargil,
only to retreat later, graphically illustrates this relationship between
the religious militant groups and the Pakistan military.
The destruction in the U.S. on Tuesday has given the anti-U.S. Islamists a
free advertisement to reach out to more young people. The mere spectacle of
the World Trade Center towers crumbling is being flaunted as the
destruction of the myth of U.S. power. The heavily indoctrinated,
religious-minded public sees it as a miracle of faith (forget the official
statements in the media and the views of the westernized intelligentsia on
the BBC). The common man on the street is, at best, ambivalent: the U.S.'s
anti-Muslim policies in the Middle East (and Kashmir) invited these
attacks; the loss of life, regrettable though it is, was, as they say,
"collateral damage." Press releases from some jihadi groups sent to
newspaper offices claim that there is an overflow of applicants for suicide
bombers since those airliners rammed through the symbols of U.S.
imperialism.
Thus far, Pakistan had never been so openly compelled to resolve this
contradiction with as much international pressure as is now at work in the
aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. After the Agra summit with
Indian Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee, in July this year, the Musharraf
government had taken some cosmetic measures to limit the activities of the
jihadi groups, such as a nominal and largely ineffective ban on the
collection of funds from the general public. Even this week, when terror
struck America, the chief of Pakistan's top intelligence agency, the ISI,
has had meetings at Pentagon, apparently discussing the Taliban and
terrorism. But now the day of reckoning has indeed arrived because it is
time to take sides, under the full gaze of an international and domestic
audience.
(Najum Mushtaq <[log in to unmask]> is an assistant editor at the News in
Rawalpindi/Islamabad.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Letters and Comments
(Editor's Note: These are several of the many responses that FPIF has
received to its commentary on the September 11 terrorism acts. Most writers
referred to the commentary "International Crimes, Not War" by Tom Barry and
Martha Honey, posted at:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0109terror-crime.html. Other letters will be
published in later issues of Progressive Response.)
*** AMERICA'S MELTING POT AND GLOBAL RESPONSE ***
I totally agree with Tom Barry and Martha Honey when they say "The U.S.
should not retaliate in kind--not allowing any compulsion for revenge or
the affirmation of U.S. military might to divert America from its moral
principles and global leadership responsibilities." I will go further
saying that retaliation will completely make the terrorists feel that the
chaos they wanted has happened and America, instead of doing things to get
going, is concentrating its time, energy, effort, and resources to punish
yet again a faceless coward.
This is not war truly, as there is no war declaration and I am finding it
hard to point to a nation to accuse of murdering so many civilians on the
American soil and shaking a global symbol like the Trade Center.
The call you made for an international coalition to "forge a broader
international coalition--bringing disparate nations together in a common
determination to fight against such crimes against humanity" should be
echoed. I hope politicians and decisionmakers read this article, as it is
the best plea I have seen since the blast that set America on fire.
I am so happy you referred to religions without blaming a single one. You
said right and no one could have put better that "Terrorism is mainly the
weapon of the politically weak, frustrated ideologues, and religious
fanatics." Many are blaming Islam and associate it with terrorism. I just
would like to say there is Islam, there are Muslims and there are
Islamists. We have to be very careful with these sensitive issues.
Do not forget: America is the nation where human samples and all ethnic
groups from all over the world live. When it is stricken, the entire world
suffers too; each person in the world has a relative on American soil.
- Ibrahima Bob <[log in to unmask]>
Dakar, Senegal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** STRIKES AND CASH ***
Responding with military raid by navy or air forces would be a mistake: it
is exactly what the terrorist groups who have planned and carried out the
carnage in New York and at the Pentagon are waiting for. They would turn a
military response into a series of "You see, these Americans are just like
terrorists, they fire and bomb innocent throngs." The real murderers, then,
would go unpunished. It is not a matter of sending a special squad to
Afghanistan to kidnap Bin Laden, either: that would turn him into a martyr
and give more fuel to fundamentalist movements.
Much better to hit these groups where it hurts the most: money. It takes a
lot of money to pay for these attacks, and it is not a problem to identify
people, banks, and institutions who operate as cover for the terrorists'
interests.
I can't think of any U.S. financial operator who could accept working for
one of these groups. Neither as far as the UK is concerned. Switzerland,
where a lot of this money is kept, can be convinced to adopt stricter
operating guidelines. This would help in isolating the groups. OPEC and
Arab states in general do know by now their moving space is close to zero:
they lack, now, the moral authority to counter a request from the U.S. or
the West in general. And when the encircling in complete, then it is time
to strike and crash.
- Franco Cavalleri <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** EXACTLY MY POINT ***
I read "International Crime, Not War" and the distinction it drew between
'crime' and 'war' caught my attention. This is the exact point I have been
trying to make to anyone who will listen and I was relieved to discover
that I am not alone in my analysis. This seems to be a point that most
people are unable to accept: there is no foreign power behind this act.
There are only individuals, acting on their own beliefs and on their own
behalf. Many people talk of retribution and vengeance, but the best
response to this horrific action is to ensure that it never happens
again--to any citizen of this planet.
- Mathew Merkel <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** GLOBALIZING ARAB WORLD ***
Germany was successfully folded into legitimacy after WW2/the cold war.
This may be a long-term goal that arises out of the coming conflicts; to
draw the Arab countries into complicity with global rule. Study of the
methods applied to Germany and the motivations for entering WW2 may be very
illuminating to the present.
- Harold Jamison <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** DUMBFOUNDED ***
I cannot believe that you are using the recent tragedy to move your
political agendas. I am appalled by the accusation made by this small
piece. I am dumbfounded that you think your group will gain support by the
distribution of this information.
You have implied that the U.S. government is responsible for the attacks on
the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon because of their support for
Israel and other free countries in the Middle East. These countries receive
support from the U.S. because they themselves are under constant
suppression from groups that oppose freedom. These countries are attempting
to establish governments in which their people can enjoy the same freedom
that allows you to live the way you do and even publish your unsettling
views. Why would you be opposed to the right of these countries to
establish this freedom for their people and why are you opposed to the U.S.
support of this attempt?
How could the U.S. government act differently? As President Bush said in
his address to the nation following the tragedy, our country is the
brightest beacon of freedom in the world. Who would support countries like
Israel, who are fighting this war for freedom, if our military did not? The
colonists of early America received support in the first fight for freedom,
should we not do the same for countries in similar positions. Of course we
are the largest supplier of arms in the Middle East region; we are the
biggest defender of freedom there and around the world. We will not stand
by and allow other groups to militarily oppress the rights that we enjoy
and believe others have the right to enjoy if they so choose.
I support the actions of our government not only because of the
unbelievable loss of life in Washington and New York, but because I am
angered by the belief of some Middle Eastern peoples, that they can come
into my country and take innocent lives because they disagree with the way
I live. It might as well have been me who was in that building because the
freedom they took from those unfortunate people is the same freedom which I
posses. They would receive no harm if they did not attempt to harm us.
- Dusty <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** SHOCKING BUT NOT SURPRISING ***
The atrocities committed against the United States of America on September
11th were shocking beyond belief. But no one should be shocked THAT it
happened.
Two years earlier almost to the day a U.S. bipartisan Presidential
Commission (http://w3.access.gpo.gov/nct/) released its first report
regarding national security threats that Americans will face in the new
century. Its summary warned, "We should expect forms and levels of violence
shocking to our sensibilities." The third and final report released early
this year put significant terrorist actions targeting Americans on American
soil as our greatest threat. Surprisingly few policymakers studied these
reports and few journalists covered them.
People now calling for "war" and a "disproportional response" to the recent
attacks either haven't read these reports, forgot them, or didn't take them
seriously. Anyone who fully understands the consequences of further
escalating violence knows that the U.S. could actually lose a war against
terrorism. A single biological attack could mean hundreds of thousands if
not millions of Americans dead or dying.
Some analysts believe that an unmeasured military response is exactly what
the recent terrorism planners are hoping for. Such a U.S. response would
demonstrate what these religious fanatics have been telling potential
recruits; the U.S. doesn't stand for its ideals of justice and the "rule of
law" and it's motivated more by greed, violence, and the hatred of Arab
people. They hope U.S. attacks that are willing to accept Arab "collateral
damage" will further enrage the general Muslim world and bring new converts
and more resources to their cause. If the U.S. gains the cooperation of
some non-democratically elected Arab political leaders that also would only
prove that the "Satan" nation cares more about Jews and oil than Arabs and
justice. It's possible and even likely that an Arab leader alliance with
America united against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan would
unite the greater Arab population--just as the recent terrorist attack
against America united our feuding political parties. This could spark a
conflict of unprecedented proportions and consequences. U.S. economic
dependence on oil would be our weakest link.
Familiarity with the Commission s reports suggests that what happened to
New York City and the Pentagon is actually insignificant compared to what
could be unleashed against the civilized world if biological, chemical,
nuclear, or even cyber weapons are focused for maximum chaos and
destruction. There is virtually no defense against most of these weapons
without eliminating virtually all the freedoms Americans enjoy. At that
point, used or unused, these weapons will have served the cause of those
who have them.
Against these and other new security threats the currently structured U.S.
military will be helpful for basically only three functions. Retaliation,
crowd control (which could range from internal U.S. police functions to
shooting down U.S. airliners), and clean up. Deterrence and defense are
obsolete cold war strategies against terrorists willing to die for their
cause.
Terrorism--as horrific as it was and will likely be in the future--may not
even be the most deadly or destructive threat we face. It and four other
categories of threats are addressed with 48 specific recommendations in the
Commission's final report. The weakness of the Commission was its lack of
focus on root causes in a highly interdependent world. While it touches on
the concepts of multilateralism and diplomacy, it virtually ignores the
role of improving the effectiveness of global democratic institutions (like
the International Criminal Court) and using the "rule of law" in dealing
with problems--or preventing them by adequately addressing root causes.
This is where the World Federalists believe there is an answer for
maximizing both national and human security and our cherished freedoms.
(http://www.wfa.org/)
- Chuck Woolery, <[log in to unmask]>
World Federalist Association
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is a new
kind of think tank--one serving citizen movements and advancing a fresh,
internationalist understanding of global affairs. Although we make our FPIF
products freely available on the Internet, we need financial support to
cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly, FPIF depends on you and
other individual donors to sustain our bare-bones budget. Click on
https://secure.webburner.net/fpif/form_donate.html to support FPIF online,
or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the
mail.
***** We Count on Your Support. Thank you. *****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response aims to provide timely analysis and opinion about
U.S. foreign policy issues. The content does not necessarily reflect the
institutional positions of either the Interhemispheric Resource Center or
the Institute for Policy Studies.
We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful, so
let us know how we're doing, via email to <[log in to unmask]>. Please put
"Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post
the Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate copies
you may receive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe to the Progressive Response, go to:
http://www.fpif.org/progresp/index.html and follow the instructions.
To subscribe directly, send a blank message to:
[log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
[log in to unmask]
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|
