I found it, generally and overall, simply adding to the confusion. It is not enough to have a few insightful criticisms sprinkled about here and there in a hodgepodge of (demoralized) cynicism. And Raimondo's praise for A. Cockburn (and Counterpunch) is all the more ironic, in that Cockburn/Counterpunch are one of the leading practitioners of the "moral equivalizing" Raimondo expends so much air in denouncing. Thus for Raimondo, Cockburn is simply another path back to "an unusable past" (which I agree, but for very different reasons, is largely unusable), that he claims to want to escape. The reality, I'm afraid - especially in connection to Cockburn - is that Raimondo simply wants to form his own version of a "Left-Right" populist coalition by adapting to flag-waving chauvinism that attends the commencement of all wars of long duration.
The problem of most leftists, at least as I observe it in the US, is their confusion of questions of _morality_ with those of _politics_, of political theory and practice. These are two different matters determined by differing sets of "laws", if you will.
Raimondo, with his expressions of "moral outrage" at "moral equivalence", simply reproduces this same confusion in his own way; he does not escape it. Worse, yet, he only reproduces it in a more "rightward leaning" fashion, to boot.
It is noteworthy that Raimondo has nothing to say about the line of _political analysis_ (not moral argument) that traces the origin of the Al Queda to the "Arab Afghans", who in turn were Washington's "allies of convenience" together with the Mujahedeen and the Zia military-Islamic dictatorship in Pakistan, throughout most of the 80's. This is a vital thread to trace where it doesn't matter that there is "no moral equivalence" between the reactionary medieval ideals of this current of Islamic fundamentalism and the modern (but also reactionary, in a different way) ideals of US capitalist liberalism. This is quite besides the point, which is: the US continues, AS WE SPEAK, in these very same practices, as is easily observed in the Middle East and S.Asia today.
Now, if we are really sincere in wanting to abolish terrorism, and - as against Hitchens and Co. , who would want us to believe that with the supposed end of the Cold War, either Washington _has_ changed or _can_ change its practices, and claim (wrongly) that it has (belatedly) done so in Yugoslavia - if it can be shown, as I believe it can be shown and explained to "ordinary" Americans, that the US government persists in the same practices that will create the conditions for future terrorism as it has done in the past, then is it not the first demand of _justice_ that Washington cease its ties with all manner of repressive, reactionary, undemocratic regimes - starting with the obvious, Saudi Arabia. We can put the question to people's heads: are these regimes truly "our allies"? Keep in mind the habits of American pragmatism when considering this question.
I'll admit it is a wee more difficult than waving the flag, but it is not at all absurd in appearance, and directly addresses the question of justice, when placed together with the political coloration of Al Queda and with issues of international law (I don't have time to get into this here). It also poses this challenge to doubters: Do you really believe Washington will "eliminate terrorism" by continuing past practices? The burden of proof is on the other side, while time - wherein Washington will likely create more chaos - is on ours.
The aim is to, and should be to, bring into question Washington's competency to govern. That is what Sept. 11th put at stake more than anything else. Need one point to the revolutionary implications?
-Brad