Yes, they could give two shits for Palestinian autonomy or Iraqi democratic ideals; but so long as the US allows Israel to commit its crimes, and so long as the US is content to strangle Iraqi children while backing other Arab dictatorships, Bin Laden doesn't need to go that extra step to recruit followers. If "we" suddenly decided to help democratize the region, to fill the bellies of the starving and protect Arab dissidents from the bullet and the noose, Bin Laden and the Taliban would remain as fucked up as they are. But they'd have a much harder time railing against infidels and using the infidels' misdeeds as cover for their fascist agenda.
I write:
Beautifully put. I couldn't have said it as 1/4 as poignantly or incisively.
It seems that the emergent and diffuse peace movement is putting at least two immediate demands on the table: 1) no military invasion in Afghanistan (or elsewhere) that will take the lives of innocents, and 2) to deal w/Bin Laden and crew (and _only_ Bin Laden and crew, not "Muslim fundamentalists" in general) by means of capture and trial in the Hague. Not all who espouse 1) espouse 2), since 2) will necessarily lead to deaths of Central and South Asian civilians, and since they cannot divorce instruments of "international law" from the imperialist context in which they are situated.
Because of the imminent threat of secret ops and/or aerial bombing in Afghanistan, both of these immediate demands more or less presume that U.S. policy is being driven by a mission to quash a specific type of "terrorism", i.e. radical Islamic "terrorism". However, I think most of us on the list would agree that the rationale is far more complex than this, despite the fact that in order to retain its legitimacy the national security state does need to clamp down on the possibility of future Al Qaeda-type attacks on U.S. military installations, citizens, and property both here and abroad. Since a "war on terrorism" is such a floating signifier (similar to "fighting communism" during the Cold War), it can be used to advance U.S. geopolitical aims and the interests of U.S. capital. But the situation is far more nuanced than this as well. In order to advance its own imperial agenda (i.e. geopolitical AND economic), the U.S. has to court multilateral support North and South, the blessing of Kofi Annan (if not an actual UN resolution), etc. Most states have their own "terrorist" problems and can use their diplomatic/logistical backing of the U.S.' "war against terrorism" to legitimate their own campaigns (Russia in Chechnya, Chinese in Xianjiang, Western Europe against "Muslim fundamentalists" in their midst, etc.). And by means of their support for "Operation Infinite Justice" (or whatever it has been renamed) other states can put the brakes to some degree on the unilateral imperialist dimensions of U.S. intervention in Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East.
So, I guess my point is that IMHO peace movement strategy (both short-term and long-term) has to recognize that the ever-evolving "war against terrorism" comprises at least three analytically separate but materially interpenetrating dimensions:
1) matters of international criminal justice 2) out-and-out U.S. imperialism 3) a precarious alliance of ruling elites the world over (both "senior partners" and
"junior partners") to deal -- by means of repression -- w/the fallout of an
ever-polarizing global capitalism
In the seminal U.S. peace movement, those who are focusing on The Hague as the proper remedy to the problem would do well to keep in mind 2) and 3); those who will bleat about U.S. imperialism (arming of Israel, sanctions against Iraq, support of the Pakistani ISS, the muhajidin, the Pakistani ISS, etc.) would do well to keep in mind 1) and 3). In other words, both parties need to keep in mind 3). I would like to advance the proposition that 3) suggests that in due time the U.S.-led "war against terrorism" (which will be joined by other states with their independent objectives) will create opportunities for international popular mobilizations along the lines of the international "anti-globalization" or "Global Justice" movement.
John Gulick