Thank you for your response, Alison. It's clear that
dialogue is not always easy. I don't see where you get
the overriding sense of fear from my post; on the other
hand, fear & anxiety seem like a pretty rational response
to the situation. Aren't all the millions marching
against war whom you mention, motivated by an intelligent
anxiety about war's consequences? The US is currently on
"code orange" high alert for another terrorist attack; it
seems that some level of concern is warranted.
I think you misattribute my characterization of the
absolutism of Islamic fundamentalists & terrorists, as if
I'm applying them to all Muslims or Arabs. Your comments
about US cultural myopia about the Middle East as
compared with Europe are simply uninformed & patronizing.
There is a great deal of opposition to war here in the US.
Nor did I "caricature" left fanatics. Nor is anyone
urging the US to "bomb Iraq flat" - this is empty,
complacent rhetorical exaggeration. To compare the
threat of Israel's nuclear program to Iraq's secret
development of bio, chemical, & nuclear weapons, is
simply ridiculous.
About the only thing in your post I agree with is the
statement that the vast majority of people stand somewhere
between the "absolutisms" of those, on either side, who press for force &
military solutions. The thrust of
my blog statement was to call for a vocabulary which
can articulate the Good in a way that supersedes the
disconnect between American strategic notions of world
order, and Islamic fundamentalist notions of the goals
of holy war. We need to outline a vision of world
order which limits the absolutism lurking in both
camps, a vision which delegitimates narrow national
self-interest, militarism, and aggression; a vision
which also to some extent legitimizes & synthesizes or
sets in relationship whatever is positive & worthwhile
coming from both camps. That is, in the name of what
ideals does the US plan for world military security through
military superiority? In the name of what ideals do
fundamentalists insist on the use of any & all means of
war to install a new Islamic Caliphate across the world?
I suggest that those underlying ideals - world peace,
holiness, dignity - can possibly be reconciled by
a philosophical vocabulary & philosophical inquiry;
in the pursuit of which, the self-interested & violent
MEANS offered for their achievement can be limited or
delegitimized to some extent (by a more profound or
disinterested international discourse or conversation).
Henry
|