Zizek: Are We in a War?

[Peter K.]

[clip]
>A little knowledge of the region made all of this foreseeable some months ago.  Our intervention
has had the positive side-effect of removing Taliban from power (although its replacements are
horrible - just not quite AS horrible).  But if dismantling the terror network really is its primary
intended effect - and here I'm accepting the announced aims of our action at face value - then we
have so far failed and now face choices far more treacherous than the choice of whether or not to
smack around a basically defenseless country.
>
>So, Peter, you seem equable and reasonable.  Seriously - what do you think ought to be done next on
the subcontinent?
>
>Michael McIntyre

Thanks for the kinds words, I try. I pretty much agree with your analysis, except that
they appear to have disrupted the terrorist network for there haven't been any
attacks as of late. On the other hand, I'm afraid that maybe Seymour Hersh is
right and things are mostly out of control. And I'm afraid that the Bush
administration will ease up on al Qaeda, the ISI and the Saudis after turning their
attention to Iraq. Pakistan should consider that Iraq was once a client state.

However, if the US had done just a mild, UN-sponsored police action and was
really soft on al Qaeda and the ISI, al Queda could have possibly
taken over the ISI and hence Pakistan (and hence have access to nuclear
weapons). From what I've read, Pakistan's fundamentalist occupation of Afghanistan was metastasizing
back into Pakistan thanks in part to Saudi Arabia. 911 put an
end to that, so maybe we should be grateful for the fact that Osama
jumped the gun.

The US should give both Pakistan and India enough aid to in effect buy "peace,"
sorta like what was done in Northern Ireland or the Middle East but more effectively of course. I
wouldn't mind paying extra taxes for that.

Peter