Steve Perry weighs in

[Carrol Cox]

I'm a bit curious  why Steve didn't post this or something like it
instead of rampaging around like he had a bee up his rectum. The bulk of
it is about as good a summary of the situation in the world today as I
have seen. But the basic self-deception  of "positive" proposals still
infects the last two paragraphs, quoted below. What Steve is offering
_as a solution_ is almost identical with what Mark Jones predicted two
weeks ago, in a post I believe I fwd -- only Mark was NOT proposing it
as a solution; he was describing what he thought were the terms of
surrender for the U.S. Steve is asking that the U.S. surrender almost
unconditionally to Arab demands, and accept in return the pretty package
of a dead Bin Laden.

It won't happen. And since it won't happen, what is the positive
proposal, that might happen, that Steve might come up with.

Carrol

Doug Henwood wrote:

[Steve Perry sent this draft of his latest, which seems pretty 
reasonable to me.]

What Is To Be Done?

There are lots of Americans who would like an alternative to 
prolonged war. Is there one?

by Steve Perry

[CLIP]
> The main question still lingers. As a friend put it to me the other
> day, you're very avid about pointing out what the U.S. should not do;
> what should we do? My modest proposal is as follows. If the U.S.
> wants to ensure the safety of its domestic populace and more workable
> accommodations to the emerging powers of the Middle East, it should
> proceed along two lines. First bin Laden. Directly guilty or not, his
> elimination is a foregone conclusion. So genuflect to his pursuit by
> a clumsy spy satellite game of Where's Waldo? and cheer his eventual
> demise. Grunt a lot in public about the evils of terrorism, but
> meanwhile take steps in the background to retool U.S. Mideast policy.
> Take a step back from sponsorship of Israeli aggressions against the
> Palestinians. The Israelis will balk but considering the amount of
> U.S. aid at stake-$2 billion annually in military aid, and nearly a
> billion in non-military support-they will make their peace soon
> enough. Likewise, back away from the unconditional support of Arab
> client regimes that repress their own people in the name of
> continuing U.S. control of the region's oil supply. Be prepared to
> deal flexibly with regimes ambivalent toward traditional American
> domination of the Middle East. The first Cold War is over, after all,
> and there is no countervailing power to foil American access to the
> area's oil reserves.
> 
> This way, and only this way, points to greater security against
> future horrors like the September 11 attacks.
> 
> Embedded links:
> 
> Examined the record: www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=97281