Alison Croggon wrote:
>
> I sense, however, that there is a need now - a real,
> >primary need like the need to piss. I share it with millions; to deny it
> >would poison us all. If you refuse to call it a need for justice, I'll
> >call it a need for vengeance. I'm willing to live with that, and for
> >others to die for it.
>
> I am not one of those who thinks that the US should do nothing. However,
> it seems to me rather crucial that if the US acts, it acts wisely.
>
> Putting thousands of Western troops into Pakistan, already inflamed with
> anti-US passions, under the "carrot and stick" philosophy being used to
> coerce various nations seems to me extremely dangerous, in the context of
> the Kashmir conflict and the radical Hinduism now in India (who is
> naturally disgruntled that an accident of geography means its policy of
> being a US friend is so rewarded, "help" with the Kashmiri conflict being
> part of the Pakistan deal). Between these two countries, the millions
> slaughtered during the nightmare of Partition has not been forgotten, even
> if it has by the rest of the world. It has rather the air of throwing a
> stick of dynamite into a rocket fuel factory. Put that with Sharon's
> transparent designs to evade dialogue with Palestine, and it's not looking
> good.
>
> If the US shows no understanding of the Middle East concerns about its
> policies there, and relies on its military strength and wealth to carry the
> day instead, it is sowing further trouble for itself. It seems to me that
> the one possible good out of this could be a little introspection from the
> US about the real effects it has had on other parts of the world, under the
> name of US interests. There are incidents which have never been dealt with
> by the US - its navy shooting down a civilian Iranian airliner with the
> deaths of all on baord, for example, after which the commander of the ship
> concerned was promoted. Such an incident, and the US's response to it,
> shows that "innocent" in certain quarters is a very relative term. This is
> where the rhetoric of "good" and "evil" is particularly useless. To
> Islamic Fundamentalists, America is Satan. If America holds up an
> ideological mirror, the only possible result is going to be ongoing
> bloodshed. The Oresteia is quite a good model for this kind of thinking.
>
> The need for revenge is what is fuelling terrorism. A primary need, you
> say, like the need to piss. What hits me more and more is how few voices
> of women are being heard: just phalanxes of men, Muslim, Christian or
> military. There are many other primary needs: the needs for example of the
> millions of Afghanis who now have to get through winter with one bag of
> flour, the millions displaced into refugee camps all around the world.
>
> Best
>
> Alison
>
> Alison Croggon
>
> Home page
> http://users.bigpond.com/acroggon/
> Masthead
> http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/

I don't disagree with your goals (especially of greater awareness on the
part of the West of the sources of its wealth and the effects of its
policies). Or with "Fight for the Mind's" statistics, or Servanthi's
remark about the selective and hypocritical moralism of the Right. Yet
we are still talking past each other, and to a great extent the
responses prove my point. Nations behave like nations. Ambitious
organized fanatics also behave like nations; or worse, because
ultimately they are responsible to no constituency. Yesterday the U.S.
Congress voted to pay some 3/5 of outstanding UN dues. A helpful, moral
decision, made entirely for reasons of state: the UN will be a useful
forum, provide legitimacy to the war effort. The point is that powerful
institutions do good only when the good is in their interest. If you
want to make them more moral you have to confront them with a greater
power committed to good. Bin Laden, as I said in my letter, is not that
power. He does not represent the oppressed and exploited of the world;
he has his own agenda.

Someone will pay, in blood and pain, for what has been done to innocent
American civilians. That is a given. It would be well if other
innocents understood the mechanics of American (and British, and
Canadian, and Australian) capital - what the SUVs mean, where the
sneakers come from, how you get people to work for pennies a day, why
the steaks come to YOUR barbie. That is also a given. But they are not
commensurate. To answer one with the other is not to "speak truth to
power" but to make oneself feel smug and virtuous and righteous, at the
cost, as I said, of continued marginalization. Raymond Aron, when he was
becoming disillusioned with the left, would listen to one of his friends
rant about the bourgeoisie, international capital, the horrible
Americans etc., then suddenly say, "Tell me - what would you like
monsieur le ministre (of whatever) to do at this moment?" And they never
had an answer.

Something else for a T-shirt, whoever it was who suggested that: "Wisdom
is the opium of the powerless."

About women, vs. us phalanxes of macho, life-denying men. Consider,
Alison, that YOUR voice is being heard, can be heard. Those of the
women of Afghanistan cannot. The other night the heroic resistants of
RAWA got extensive and sympathetic air-time on US television; the word
"left-wing" was used but they were still presented as martyrs. Again,
for reasons of state.