This argument is not at all incorrect and points to the need to proceed with a careful analysis of the social class basis/class politics of the Taliban, Bin Laden, etc. even during this period. However, it is also something that one can find in recent writings/interviews/lectures by Chomsky, Pilger et al., though there remains a good deal more of it to be done. That doesn't, however, change the reality that T/BL most certainly do believe they are acting in response to what's happening on the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, etc. And that does matter, especially if US Foreign Policy is designed in such a way that more and more persons in the Middle East, Afghanistan, etc. believe that T/BL speak to and have a solution to the suffering of Palestinians, large numbers of Muslims in the Arab world, etc. What Burchill, critically, doesn't offer in her argument is an alternative between supporting T/BL (which, sorry c.h, most in the anti-war movement do *not* identify with) and the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan being orchestrated by c.h's new war buddies in the shrub administration, which will almost surely create even more who identify with T/BL. Must our only choices be TBL or Shrub/Blair's "war on terrorism"?
Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822