>If I recall, a big chunk of Johnson's Blowback argument is about Far
>East (the area of his expertise), especially Okinawa - but it was not
>Japanese kamikaze pilots who flew the airliners into WTC and the
>Pentagon (another reminder that the past performance is not an >indicator
>of future results). If anything, the Blowback theory would >predict that
>the blowback would come from anyone but the Muslims - >after all, the Arab
>and Muslim countries received a quite favorable >treatment from the US
>(especially by a comparision to Latin America of >Far East), as evidences
>by the US position on the Suez Canal crisis, >Russian invasion of
>Afghanistan, the invasion of Kuwait, the civil war >in Bosnia, the Kosovo
>debacle, and a friendly attitude toward Saudi >Arabia.
I took the "Blowback Theory" in far less specific terms. Instead of something which only could happen to the US, it has a chance of happening to persons or groups depending on a variety of circumstances. In the case of the US, one would have had to ask such questions as who has motive, who has money, who has good enough (or thinks so . . .) cover against retaliation, and/or who has the sheer guts/crazy courage (isn't there a word for that in Yiddish or Hebrew? Meshuggeneh?) to pull something like that off. And these questions would have to be posed within a chaotic environment where access to quality information would be scarce at best.
>The key problem of the Blowback theory is its US-centrism, the "we
>brought it upon ourselves" religious trope. Most US-ers seem taking it
>for granted that there are the masters, the only issue is whether the
>masters of light (the patriotic version) or masters of darkness (the
>countercultural version). It seemingly does not occur to these folks
>that they may be mere pawns in someone else's game over which the US >has
>little control. If we shed the US-centric view, the Arab terrorism
>appears more like an internal affair among various Arab and Muslim
>factions, and the US being more of a strawman attacked to make a poitn
>or to demonstrate one's prowess.
>Wojtek
Depending on the "spin" the author put on it, yes, I suppose it could be taken "religiously" e.g. we/you got what you deserved for doing/not doing X; divine justice for hubris; etc. But then such a stand would tend to absolve the one hit by blowback by giving the impression that it was destined to come, period. However, a more informed approach would take into account as much as possible while still leaving open room for something else happening.
Depending on circumstances, the blowback might never have developed at all.
Shedding the US-centric view still doesn't neccessarily give as clear an analysis, I would think, as it once again leaves the US as "off the hook" as the religious narrative above. One still has to ask, "did the US government do something that someone, somehow could use as a pretext for attack?"
Was France hit by blowback from its adventures in North Africa?
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx