by Doug Henwood <http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=henwood20011121>
-clip-
But the biggest absence of all was the recognition that there's something different about this war as compared to recent military interventions over Kosovo and Kuwait. Speakers and attendees frequently cited longstanding US geopolitical goals as lurking behind the war. This is undeniably true. Washington's war strategy is not motivated by tenderness for the people of Afghanistan. For all the professions of concern about the abuse of women under the Taliban, George W. Bush and his cronies haven't been born-again as feminists. But there was little serious acknowledgment that we were attacked, and that some US response was inevitable and even justified. Recognizing that doesn't mean assent to Bush's version of a response, though lots of people in the peace movement seem to fear it does. But anyone who wants to speak to an audience beyond the small circle of believers has to consider these questions seriously.
%%%%%%%%
CB: We should say it this way: Yes , there is something new and something old in this situation. The old is that the U.S. is continuously attacking people around the world ( list examples from the last 20 years). The new is that SOMEBODY HIT BACK HARD IN THE US HOMELAND, a qualitatively new response to U.S. aggression. In other words, this is a new level of intolerance for U.S. war by its victims, so the U.S. better stop bullying people before it gets worse.
Our project should be to tell the truth. Disabuse the American people of their fantasy that the U.S. has not been a bad actor around the world for many years.
%%%%%%
-clip-
Linking the themes of peace and justice can be done, but it requires hard thinking, and there's not enough of that going on right now.
%%%%%
CB: It is not so much hard thinking as facing a truth that hurts: Uncle Sam is a thug. Most people don't want to face that truth.