----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Sawicky" <sawicky at bellatlantic.net>
> >To consistently maintain your position why aren't you suggesting we
> >should bomb SA? They're marginally different from the Taliban;
> >directly and indirectly funded the Taliban and by the Bushies own
> >investigations, Al Qaeda*; the strategists - perpetrators mostly
come
> >from there. We're all familiar with the canard that the choices
suck,
> >but if the administration's claims to legitimize it's action is/was
> >'to bring the perpetrators to justice,' doesn't that minimally
require
> >getting the target right? You've yet to answer that part of my past
> >queries. If SA is innocent from your perspective, then why aren't
the
> >Taliban and, surely, the Afghan people? Ian
>
>
> There are gradations of guilt and complicity. There is no evidence
> the Saudi state is complicit in 9/11, nor that it is sheltering OBL
or
> the important al-qaida people. There is no lack of evidence that
> individual Saudi's are part of the OBL/al qaida network, and we
> could reasonably guess that the Saudi state is not turning its own
> country upside-down in a hunt for OBL cronies. That is quite
> different from the role of the Taliban in re: OBL and al qaida.
> The logic of linking support for some bombing in Afgh to bombing
> S.A. unfolds absurd conclusions from a fallacious analogy. I think
> this is an easy argument.
================
Again, I'm not suggesting that we should bomb anybody. I'm suggesting that the criteria you seem to be using to explain your aquiesence to the bombing of Afgh., if consistent would lead a rough equivalence of culpability/guilt on the part of the SA state. The issue is not states sponsoring terrorism, but states harboring terrorism. Those were the threshold criteria the US Gov. used for justifying it's retaliation. Even if we make minimal relaxations in the distinction, we can say that the Saudi state has sponsored terrorism precisely because of it's support of the Taliban; a quasi government in a quasi state, to borrow a term from Robert Jackson. Thus, we're quibbling over geographical loci and not the more important issue of institutional loci of responsibility-culpability-guilt. This is a fundamental error, imo.
We can't appeal to individualism in one context in order to refrain from passing judgement that would be consistent with a structural-institutional argument we use for analyzing the same problem - terrorism - in another. Gradations are slippery slopes and if the US is to avoid acting - and appearing to act in the eyes of other nations and cultures - capriciously then it must default to a position of restraint at least until all the facts are in. I know at this stage it's a moot point. But we've made a horrible problem worse. That is a failure of strategy given the level of anger against our hegemonic status. I'm not defending our hegemony, I'm simply putting forward one take on long term 'self-interest.'
> I am more bothered by Chomsky's argument that the U.S. should
> be bombed for what the Clinton Admin did to the Sudan or Iraq. My
> best answer is that there is no agency capable of using force
against
> the U.S. on behalf of good that is inclined to do so. As I said
once
> before,
> if there was some giant Sweden intent on curbing U.S. excess, my
national
> loyalties, such as they are, would be under some stress. But that's
a
> purely
> academic question.
>
> The U.S. is the one and only superpower. The use of force against
it in a
> military sense by anyone or anything is out of the question. Any
such force
> can only exert pressure by being exerted on innocent Americans,
which
> makes it unacceptable. It isn't fair, but that's the way it is.
>
> mbs
==========
Which is all the more reason for the US to be even more restrained with it's use of force. Lest the rest of the world be reduced to clucking and or more 9-11 type events to get their points across. Asymmetric warfare is here to stay and if we are to avoid slow motion armageddon, the US Government has more to learn about asymmetric warfare than any other nation or social network. Given our history I tremble, especially for young people who are inheriting a bigger mess than their parents did. The evolution of technology will make 9-11 type events even easier in the future.
Ian