Dear Eugene:
> Thanks a lot for your reply and bringing a level of complexity. I
> agree
> with majority of our points. I also find a few points for respectful
> disagreement:
Thanks for agreeing that the situation is indeed complex. I spent most
of the week caught between people who were saying either "Bomb 'em flat"
or "Poor oppressed creatures, what can you expect from them?"
>
> 1. "The war is here." I'm not sure that it is useful to qualify this
> terrible terrorist act as "war" exactly because war phraseology may
> provoke inappropriate military actions as it was in past and not
> only in
> US (e.g., Russia and Israel).
Technically, what has been committed would be defined by almost any
country as an "act of war." In this case, there is a legal necessity to
have Congress declare a state of hostilities, since we have quite rightly
restricted Presidents in the uninhibited use of military power. It's
true that this is not "war" in the sense that the word has been used
until now, simply because the type and scope of attack is new. This is
the first time that a hijacked plane has been used as a weapon and not as
a bargaining chip. Also, in the past military actions have been usually
conducted by governments of sovereign states, not global clandestine
networks.
If you can come up with an appropriate term to differentiate it from
"conventional" warfare, please do, because fighting this conflict is
going to be an entirely different experience. It's "war" because they're
trying to kill us and we're trying to get there to kill them first.
People are going to say "war" - the problem is to get them to stop and
ask - "what kind of war?" Then they can begin to sort out appropriate
from inappropriate actions. But telling Americans right now that it's
not "really" a war is to invite them to ignore you. "Sure it's just like
Pearl Harbor, but is this 1941?" Don't preach - just ask questions.
Getting people to stop and think is the first step. They might not
change their mind on the spot, but when you're safely out of sight they
can re-evaluate both what you've said and what they've heard from the
government. The President watches the polls, and he knows they can swing
radically almost overnight.
>
> 2. "There are enough real professionals in the White House that Bush
will be restrained." I have not seen those "real professionals" in any
of crises that Bush was involved (e.g., in the recent energy crisis in
CA).
The California crisis was "business as usual" i.e. Bush making sure that
his friends make as much money as possible. Military affairs are
different. No one expected Bush to know anything about foreign policy.
That's why Powell, among other people, is there. Notice that when Bush
tried to pick a fight with Putin, Putin sidestepped. The end of the
China spy plane crisis was quietly arranged by Powell. You can make a
credible case for the theory that no one really expected Bush to act
presidential - he was just an excuse to get certain influential groups
back into the center of power. As far as I can tell, these guys are
mainly interested in money, and you can't make much money if your country
is either isolated or terrorized. It's the difference between
shoplifting from your local candy store and firebombing it. If you want
to keep helping yourself to the goodies, the store has to stay intact.
>
> Unfortunately politicians and especially officials of Bush
administration continue war drum beating and sweeping rhetoric of
destroying countries and peoples.
Bush backed down from his extreme comments within a day because he caught
so much flak. He's going to play it for all it's worth, but the bottom
line is that after Vietnam and after the end of the Cold War, we have put
a few constraints on the President. Add to that the fact that he's going
to have to have cooperation from other countlries, and they're already
talking about planning and calculating responses. And it's also going to
occur to people here that in a war our guys get killed, too. A lot of
the war-talk was the reaction of an American people who had never, ever
in their wildest dreams imagined such a proof of vulnerability. The
memory of Vietnam is still there, even when we try to bury it.
I've been reading five different newspapers/news services on the web
today, and none of them expect a military strike any time soon. So don't
worry yet - but send your Congressman and Senators an email saying you
hope that any action taken is well-thought-out. This is still a
democracy, even though it isn't a perfect one.
Spokoinoi nochyu
Rachel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 10 2001 - 15:49:17 PDT