3 great articles

Over the weekend I came accross these articles all of which I think make strong points that are essential to this issue. The first is from Sunday's Washington Post and is by a retired Army officer who makes a compelling case for the use of overwelming force in Afganistan.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7902-2001Sep22.html


The second is by Tom Friedman who wrote the seminal book, "From Beriut to Jureusalam" which I think is a classic for understanding the Mid-East, he writes a column for the NY Times and this one is about some tough issues in terms of the population in many Mid-East countries. (you need a membership to view NYT articles but it's free to sign up)


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/21/opinion/21FRIE.html?searchpv=past7days


The last one is by Charles Krauthaumer the columnist from Friday's Washington Post, he takes on the relativist arguments of those who opppose using force to deal with this issue.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1138-2001Sep20.html


I'd be interested in posters views on all three. I find myself in agreement with them, particuarly the Krauthaumer one. I foudn the articles he referenced repugnant.

I read all three (two previously) but don't have time to comment except to say I agree with the essence of what they have to say. BTW, I love to read Krauthaumer and have his columns bookmarked.


George Will also has some great columns and a link is provided below.


Regards,


Rick

I have a completely different political perspective than my good friend Rick. So here's an opposing point of view on the Krauthaumer article.


I don't have time to go into specifics right now, I'll give it a shot tonight. I found the article a particularly disgusting example of Krauthaumer's extreme right-wing philosophy. It's disgusting because he thinks we should all march lock-step behind what is clear to him: we are good, they are evil and there's no room for discussion, for history, or shades of gray. Democracy is indecent. For another writer to even suggest that maybe we ought to look at what we're doing in the world for context is apparently beyond the pale.


The claim that those who question the common "wisdom" blame America first is just plain wrong. More than wrong, it also questions the patriotism of those who might disagree with government policy. The history of the world over the past 50 years provides plenty of evidence that our government kills civilians, that it lies, that it can do evil things. This does not make it evil. To reduce the world to black and white without any concern for these things is obscene. This is the best word I can provide for Krauthaumer's writings over the years.

I only read the Kruathammer article and, like you, found it to a total piece of crap pretty much for the reasons you stated.

Andy---That's interesting, I'm actually not a conservative at all and frequently disagree with Krauthaumer but thought he nailed it this time.


I agree that not everyone who questions our current posture toward Afganistan is in the "blame America" crowd, but the Sontag article he references was, in my opinion, pretty awful and was a close to the blame America as you can get without just coming out and saying it.


Our foriegn policy in the Mid-East is far from perfect but nothing rises to the level of what happened on the 11th or in my opinon in any way excuses it.

I haven't read the Sontag article; I do get the New Yorker, so I'll look for it.


There's a difference between blaiming America "first" and assuming some responsiblity for the results of our actions. It does not, for example, excuse the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by saying that we should have been smarter about knowing more about who we were supporting among the rebels. Some 300 to 500 Stinger missiles we gave to the rebels are apparently unaccounted for. When the Afghanis shoot down our boys with these weapons, who should we blame first and who should we blame second?


No one excuses what happened on September 11. I can't look at the pictures I took of the World Trade Center last year without crying. But what Krauthaumer was saying was it was just evil, plain and simple and nothing else matters, there's no room for moral relativism, the questioning of motive or the examination of history. To do so is indecent. I disagree.

MAP:


You are getting caught up in the bad logic of a rank propagandist.


Consider these statements: (1) The bombing was an unjustified crime. (2) The bombing was partly a consequence of U.S. foreign policy.


The second statement is arguable, but it's simply stupid to contend that it's inconsistent with the first, unless every attempt at explanation amounts to apologia (which would make all historians of the Third Reich into Nazi sympathizers, or at least those that connect the rise of the Nazis with some disfavored policy, such as the Treaty of Versailles).


According to Krauthammer, however, Susan Sontag believes, but does not "quite have the courage to say," that "we had it coming." Note the slight ambiguity of "had it coming." Viewed neutrally and out of context, he might be saying that Sontag merely believes that terrorism is a predictable response to U.S. policy. But in the context of his rant about "moral obtuseness," he's clearly implying that Sontag thinks that the U.S., or perhaps the bombing victims, deserved what they got, although he does not "quite have the courage" to say it.


His evidence? Because she is "appalled at the ‘the self-righteous drivel' that this was an ‘attack on ‘civilization'‘ rather than on America as ‘a consequence of specific American alliances and actions. How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq?'"


In other words, because Sontag makes a causal link between U.S. policy and terrorism, she is "morally obtuse." If a historian connected the Pearl Harbor raid with the prior U.S. embargo of Japan, would you conclude: "this guy's morally obtuse; he thinks we had it coming." Of course not.


Now consider something really harebrained: (1) The bombing was an unjustified crime. (2) The bombers hate U.S. foreign policy. (3) The morality of U.S. foreign policy is therefore the opposite of those of the bombers.


This is the syllogism that Sontag is evidently complaining about, the surge of "self-righteousness" in response to the bombing, the claims that the bombing was an attack not just against the U.S. and it's policies but against "civilization," and the foreign policy of same. We're so good because the bombers are so bad; our foreign policy is righteous because the bombing was so criminal.


That's dumb, but it's exactly what Krauthammer is arguing. After a few (wildly misleading) phrases about the basic rationality and decency of U.S. policy, he writes: "[h]as there ever been a time when the distinction between good and evil was more clear?" In other words, the evil of the bombing clarifies the good of U.S. policy. It follows that terrorists killing even more people would make U.S. foreign policy even better. You might say no, he's merely contrasting the evil of the bombers and the good of the innocent victims and bravery of the heros. But then his immediately prior discussion of the magnanimity of U.S. foreign policy would make no sense. This is where he truly takes issue with Sontag. Perhaps he feels the need to paint her as a terrorist sympathizer because he knows what he's saying is indefensible.


A short time ago Moscow was plagued by a series of bombs allegedly placed by Chechyn terrorists. Regardless of the morality of these attacks, no thinking person would fail to make some connection between the bombs and Russian policy toward Chechnya. Undoubtedly some Russian equivalent of Charles Krauthammer was there in the Russian press denouncing the bombs as attacks on "civilization," that anyone who connected them with Russian foreign policy was a morally obtuse apologist, and that the bombings clarified the distinction between the good guys running Russia and their terrorist monster adversaries. And you'd properly conclude: what a hack.


After chastising a rabbi, Krauthammer ends his piece with a bit of anti-Muslim dissembling. He asks: "And where are the Muslim clerics -- in the United States, Europe and the Middle East -- who should be joining together to make that distinction with loud unanimity? Where are their fatwas against suicide murder? Where are the authoritative communal declarations that these crimes are contrary to Islam?"


They're everywhere, as anyone who's been watching the TV news or reading the recent papers fully well knows. A moment's search of the web reveals all sorts of denunciations of terrorism by Muslims, quoting the Koran at length. The following is from the Press release issued by The Islamic Society of North America, which was also signed by the American Muslim Alliance, American Muslim Council, Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers, Association of Muslim Social Scientists, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Medical Association of North America, Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic Society of North America, Ministry of Imam W. Deen Mohammed, Muslim American Society and the Muslim Public Affairs Council:


"ISNA stands shoulder to shoulder with all Americans in expressing its deep sorrow over the deliberate air-crashes in New York and Washington, DC that have led to the loss of countless innocent lives.


ISNA joins Muslim organizations throughout North America in condemning these terrorist attacks and calls upon Muslim Americans to come forward with their skills and resources to help alleviate the sufferings of the affected people and their families.


ISNA condemns these senseless acts of terrorism against innocent civilians, which will only be counterproductive to any agenda the perpetrators may have had in mind. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts."


Note the words "condemn," "senseless," "immoral." Not good enough for Kratuhammer, because he can locate one single sentence spoken by a Muslim leader that did not condemn the attacks directly in religious terms:


"Why did the spiritual leader of the Islamic Society of North America, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, not say that such terrorism is contrary to Islam in his address at the national prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral? His words went out around the world. Yet he was vague and elusive. 'But those that lay the plots of evil, for them is a terrible penalty.' Very true. But who are the layers of plots of evil? Those who perpetrated the World Trade Center attack? Or America, as thousands of Muslims in the street claim? The imam might have made that clear. He did not. This is no time for obfuscation." (Check out the hidden sentence there: "Thousands of Muslims in the street claim ... [that the reference to] "the layers of plots of evil" in a "service at the Washington National Cathedral" means "America." What an obfuscating asshole.)


It cannot be surprising that the quoted phrase does not expressly lay blame on the bombers, or anyone else, as it comes from the Koran. (The text citation in the transcript is to Fatir 35:10). Incredibly, Krauthammer is objecting to using a phrase from the Koran in a Muslim prayer because it fails to condemn today's criminals, while implying without any basis at all that it could just as easily be interpreted as condemnation of "America."


Three sentences later in his (11- sentence) prayer, Dr. Siddiqi said: "We turn to you, our Lord, at this time of pain and grief. We witness the evil of destruction and the suffering suffered by many of our compatriots. With hearts weighed down with grief and with tears in our eyes, we turn to You, our Lord, to seek comfort. O Lord, Help us in our distress, keep us united as people of diverse faiths, colors and races, keep our country strong for the sake of good and righteousness, and protect us from evil."


Is there some ambiguity there, some way to interpret "this time of pain and grief," the "evil destruction" we witnessed and the "suffering suffered by many of our compatriots" as a possible indictment of "America?" Krauthammer evidently thinks so, and because of him, millions more Americans probably think so too. Probably not those already beating up Muslims or ripping the turbans off (and shooting) Sikhs, but the more educated crowd, the ones that will read with dismay about such acts but remember Krauthammer's complaint about Muslim leaders not being sufficiently critical of the attacks, and concluding: "well, it's sad, but maybe they had it coming."

I've just had a chance to read Sontag's three paragraphs in the New Yorker (great edition, September 24, 2001, with an unforgettable, chilling cover) that so incensed Charles Krauthammer.


Sontag called the events of September 11 "monstrous." adn that we should grieve together. She said that no one doubts America is strong. But she wants America to be more than strong. She wants it to be smart and good too.


She calls for, and believes it may well be happening, thinking about our intelligence and counter-intelligence operations, about American foreign policy, and about our military defense.


There is absolutely no insinuation, as Krauthammer alleges, of "we had it coming." There is a call for historical awareness and realization that our actions around the world may have consequences.


It is a call for morality. Krauthammer's claim that her morals are indecent is a travesty, but this comes as no surprise from

the "my country, right or wrong" crowd, for which he has always been a cheerleader.

OK, couple of thoughts.


First, Sontag doesn't call the attacks monstrous, she calls them a "monstrous dose of reality", that's very different. And, in terms of the we had it coming argument, she writes, "Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken

as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?"


I'm including a link to the full article below, you have to go down a way to get to it though, it's from a collection of essays in the last issue.


As to the larger point, this was, in my opinion an attack on our civilization and way of life because they are threatening to radical groups like the Taliban. Can you seriously argue that if we were to simply let Hussien go on as before in Iraq and withdraw our support for Israel that this would stop? Bin Laden himself has said no, while they loath Israel they consistently attack (rhetoricaly) the United States beyond just our support for Israel.


I'm not arguing that our polcicies in the mid-East are flawless, far from it. However, I am aruging that are substantially less the cause of what happened on the 11th than a clash of worldviews. That's why the Friedman column is so useuful, he gets into the issue of how people in the Mid-East view us as a result of state sponsored news and so on. And that is where I think Krauthamer has a point, the amount of aid we pour into these countries is substantial and we have tried to aid these countries where we can albiet ineptly at times.


And having spent time there, sadly I have to agree with Friedman about where much of the sentiment in the street lies. Which is why I too am troubled that when you read between the lines of too many of the "denouciations" of the attack they do fail to say out and out that this is abhorent to Islam. Sure, they express sympathy and support, condem innocent deaths but several I've read and heard fail to offer a outright condemation of those who do this. I'm not defending Krauthamuer on this point expclitly, he could have found a better example, but I sadly agree with the larger point.


Re the terrible incidents toward Arab Americans and so forth, that's just simply ingnorance, bigotry and jingoism, hell they're attacking Sihks for God's sake. It's almost entirely divorced from this discussion.

She did indeed call them a "monstrous dose of reality." I'm not quite sure of the difference. The dose of reality was the attacks.


The quote in your first paragraph does not imply we had it coming. It implies that there was a reason for the attack and that to just call it an attack on liberty or civilization is to put one's head in the sand.


I do not argue that were we to adopt certain policies, attacks would stop. Bin Laden, for example, in my opinion, based on the interviews with him I've read, will never be satisfied until everything with which he disagrees is completely destroyed. I do argue that the attacks did not occur in a vacuum. Actions have consequences. When you have a worldwide empire this has consequences. It makes no difference in this regard as to whether one's actions are good or bad, right or wrong. If you consider yourself a superpower and act like one, there will be consequences. This occurs whether you do a lot of bad things (like the Soviet Union during the Cold War) or a lot of both good and bad things, as I would argue we do.


This is why we need to be more than just strong, we need to be smart and good as well. This is what I got from the Sontag piece. A clash or worldviews? Undoubtedly. Do a large number of people see us negatively in the Middle East because of state sponsored news? Yes.


But did we go blindly into Afghanistan to support people who were not worthy of our support? Yes. Have we done this in many other places? Yes. Have people suffered because of this? Yes.

Do we need a reassessment of not only our intelligence gathering apparstus and our security measures, but also our foreign policy? I believe we do.


By the way, I think the Bush administration had handled things magnifciently. There has been no rush into military action. Evidence has been gathered; a coalition has been sought. The assets of the organizations are being attacked. We have clearly stated out aims. Bush's speech was wonderful. His visits to the World Trade Center and the Islamic mosque were also, in my judgment, wonderful.


It is only in the attitude of good vs. evil, the black and white approach to world affair that I have qualms. I do not say we are not better than our enemies. But to insist that everything we do is correct because we do it can lead to trouble, has indeed led to trouble in the past. To say that the attacks on us were not motivated by anything other than an attack on "civilization" or "democracy" is to be shortsighted.

You're merely parroting propaganda line that all those that even once connect U.S. policy to terrorism while failing to contantly connect Islam to terrorism are morally suspect.


"Sontag doesn't call the attacks monstrous, she calls them a "monstrous dose of reality", that's very different."


How? She's defining the attacks as a "dose of reality" and then modifying her definition by calling them "monstrous." It's syntatically identical to the phrase "the attacks were monstrous," or "the dose of reality we received was monstrous." You might disagree with her definition, but there's no basis to claiming that she wrote that the attacks might be justified, which what Krauthammer implies by calling her morally "obtuse."


"And, in terms of the we had it coming argument, she writes, "Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?"


Then her following statement must be another example of how she's trying to downplay the criminality of what happened: "A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen."


What you and Kratuhammer are arguing is the notion that attempts to explain terrorism as a consequence of U.S. actions, even to prevent future terrorism, amounts to rationalizing or justifying such acts. Since the sole purpose of this argument is to chill serious criticism of U.S. policy, it is a totalitarian endeavor. (By "serious" criticism I mean to exclude the ubiquitous concessions that U.S. policy is "far from flawless," imperfect, etc. These statements are just empty acknowledgements that we haven't achieved unattainable perfection.)


"Can you seriously argue that if we were to simply let Hussien go on as before in Iraq and withdraw our support for Israel that this would stop?"


I'm not speaking for Andy but it doubt it, particularly since no one else has made or is making that argument, if by "this" you mean foreign terrorism against the U.S.


But the utility of changing U.S. policy is not to most important point, unless we embrace the ethos of terrorists. Anyone that considers the facts knows that Israel engages in random killing of civilians -- a form of state terrorism -- and that U.S. sanctions in Iraq kill innocents (including an estimated 500,000 children -- a "hard choice" that Madelline Albright claimed was "worth it" on 60 Minutes when confronted with this statistic). If these policies were no longer supported by the U.S., then the bad things we're doing here "would stop." It would also eliminate two central indictments of U.S. policy that feeds so much animosity in the Middle East. The extent to which that might curtail foreign terrorism is be open to speculative debate. The extent to which that would fulfill a moral responsibility is undisputable, unless, of course, we're only concerned about terrorism when the other guy does it to us. (It's interesting what little mainstream discussion about U.S. policy that has occurred since the attacks addresses the question of whether changing policy can reduce the incidence of terrorism, instead of asking whether and how such policies, about which the public is largely ignorant, are justified in the first place).


"That's why the Friedman column is so useful, he gets into the issue of how people in the Mid-East view us as a result of state sponsored news and so on."


Friedman is famously supportive of Israel and U.S. policy in the Middle East, for which he bears considerable responsibility for helping engineer support. It is hardly surprising that he, like Krauthammer, whose brutal pro-Israelism is purely chauvinistic, is doing his damndest to downplay any perceived connection between U.S. policy and terrorism.


Hence we should expect the predictable, time-worn arguments that terrorism is really caused by the mideval worldview of fundamentalist Muslims who hate U.S. affluence, secularism, feminism and so forth, as exacerbated by by official propaganda. In other words, something that we really can't do much of anything about. You see the same thing in the Southern responses to Northern abolitionism before the Civil War -- it's not our indefensible policy they really hate, it's that they're jealous and hate us unreasonably.


The near-unanimous focus on the U.S., as opposed to other countries that are also affluent, secular, feminist, etc. (virtually all of Western Europe), highlights to facial absurdity of this argument. After all, what do you suppose Middle Eastern propaganda tends to emphasize the most, the decadent affluence and secularism of the West or the U.S. role in the occupied territories or sanctions against Iraq? Do you think, as Freidman suggests, that terrorists are equally motivated by their hatred of equal rights for women as they are by the suffering of their co-religionists?


"Which is why I too am troubled that when you read between the lines of too many of the "denouciations" of the attack they do fail to say out and out that this is abhorent to Islam. Sure, they express sympathy and support, condem innocent deaths but several I've read and heard fail to offer a outright condemation of those who do this."


I've heard a lot of expressions of sympathy for the victims from non-Muslims that didn't in the same breath condemn the terrorists, and so have you. So is it the unique responsibility of Muslims to condemn the terrorists every time they mention the incident? That could only be true of Islam or it's offshoots were responsible for terrorism, and I doubt that you'll find many Muslims that agree with you, any more than you find Christians that believe that misinterpreted Christianity helped cause the holocaust, or Jews that think that misinterpreted Judaism causes settler terrorism on the West Bank. Nor will you find the likes of Freidman or Krauthammer arguing as much, as these concessions don't serve the purposes of the state.

Maybe what Charles is trying to say is that Susan (and yourself)love to point out how the attacks on America are a 'consequence of specific American alliances and actions', but are never quite willing to address those American alliances and actions and see if they are worthwhile.


Nor are you willing to examine the rhetoric and actions of Bin Laden and the Islamic Fundamentalists and compare them with the rhetoric and actions of the United States and decide who has a better vision for this world. Sometimes, it doesn't matter if they once had right on their side, it doesn't excuse them for the horrors they wish to visit on the world. Germany had many legitimate gripes pre-WWII, but it didn't give them the right to do what they did.


I look at the Taliban and Bin Laden and their goals for the Muslim world (and mabye the goals for the whole world) and can say: Their view isn't civilized, it is an abomination, it is evil. I see that in pursuit of this goal they have bombed the United States which is the one country that will likely oppose the spread of their world vision. I can safely say that the Taliban don't love Freedom for all, except freedom for the chosen few. This is a clash of culture and it is an assualt on our civilization. To say that this is an attack on civlization and freedom isn't drivel. It may be on the edge of far fetched, but it isn't drivel.


What is drivel is to use this opportunity to go on and on about the evil deeds of the United States as if we live in some moral vacuum where are only choices are perfect good or perfect evil. I would respect your view much more Chris Alger if you spent a little time discussing the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism and how you plan to combat it. Maybe you don't think it is a threat, maybe you like the idea of killing homosexuals. Maybe you agree with Buchanan that we should pull up the draw bridge to the world. I don't know. All I know is you can't stand the United States.


There is a great deal I dislike about the US. But, I do know that the US is one of the greatest nations in the world. I also know that the United States has done more for world freedom and wealth and good than any other country in the world. Do you disagree with that Mr. Alger? Yes, the US has done much that was wrong as well, though certainly not the most.


Is there anything that are willing to fight for Mr. Alger? What is it? Or are you simply content to sit in your cave spouting nonsense about the Evil US Empire while real people and real soldiers step onto the world stage and try to do some good.


It is so easy to criticize. I know because I sounded just like you for awhile. I was raised in Idaho where the US does no wrong. Off to college I went, and I was horrified at the wrongs the US has visited on the world. The shock was huge, and I was eager to tear it all down. Then, I kept learning, and I kept an open mind. I discoved that there was far more bad in the world than good, that there are a lot of tough choices that have to be made, and that the world is a dangerous place. All things considered, we've done a pretty good job. We could do better, and hopefully we will.


I wish we could be perfect for Chris Alger so he wouldn't have to be troubled by the many imperfections that exist in this world. He is willing to grant shades of gray to the entire world except for the United States and Isreal.


We aren't perfect, but the United states does stand for freedom, for tolerance, and for the pursuit of happiness. When you attack the United States, you may be fighting back for wrongs committed by the US or you may be fighting against those principles for which America stands. I think if you look at the world view of the Taliban and Bin Laden it is pretty clear that they are fighting against freedom, tolerance, and the pursuit of happiness along with fighting back for the few legitimate grievances they hold.


Pat Charlton

Basically, you say nothing. Thanks for the insight.


Pat Charlton

I don't know the facts. Please document the fact that Isreal randomly kills civilians. If you can't document it, then stop saying it.


Please explain the link between US sanctions and Iraqi starvation. Especially in light of evidence that Hussein much prefers to spend his oil wealth on weapons and monuments, and has even sold food on the world market to increase his purchasing power for weapons. Also, it appears that the Kurds can feed their poeple despite falling under the same sanctions.

link:

http://www.tnr.com/061801/rubin061801.html


Please document that the Palestinian people will be satisfied with self-determination on the West Bank and Gaza and half of Jerusalem. If they really mean it, why did they turn down that offer?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380


Thanks,


Pat Charlton

"Maybe what Charles is trying to say is that Susan (and yourself)love to point out how the attacks on America are a 'consequence of specific American alliances and actions', but are never quite willing to address those American alliances and actions and see if they are worthwhile."


I've addressed them and I think I've made it clear that I don't think they're worthwhile, at least not to the 99.9% that don't benefit from them.


"Nor are you willing to examine the rhetoric and actions of Bin Laden and the Islamic Fundamentalists and compare them with the rhetoric and actions of the United States and decide who has a better vision for this world."


I have no question that even the worst elements in U.S. policy-making have a better vision of the world than bin Laden. (Although Ollie North is a close call). But it's not the issue at all.


"Sometimes, it doesn't matter if they once had right on their side, it doesn't excuse them for the horrors they wish to visit on the world. Germany had many legitimate gripes pre-WWII, but it didn't give them the right to do what they did."


Apart form the confusing reference to them "once" having been in the right, I've never heard of anyone disagreeing with this. I certainly don't.


"It may be on the edge of far fetched, but it isn't drivel."


Whatever.


"What is drivel is to use this opportunity to go on and on about the evil deeds of the United States as if we live in some moral vacuum where are only choices are perfect good or perfect evil."


Re: the "moral vacuum," nobody thinks that. I can't imagine a better time to raise issues of basic morality in U.S. policy, especially when the U.S. is supposedly on the verge of a war against something we're having great difficulty describing, and when what little controversy that's heard on the issue is being drowned out by war nuts.


"I would respect your view much more Chris Alger if you spent a little time discussing the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism and how you plan to combat it."


Why? Because you think it's more important to attack others for the bad things they do instead of taking responsibility for the bad things that we do? Don't you have this backwards? After all, you'd be hard-pressed to hold me responsible for the Taliban, Abu Nidal, etc., but as a citizen in a democracy I think have a least some responsibllity for the actions of the U.S. and whatever bad consequences flow from them. You are arguing that either (1) I should be held more responsible for the actions of the Taliban than the actions of the U.S., or (2) should I just blame the Taliban for the bad things it does and refuse to accept blame for the bad things the U.S. does. The first is silly and the second is immoral.


Maybe it's all academic as I don't believe that "Islamic Fundamentalism" is a "threat," or much of one. I'm a bit bothered by how primitively religious the U.S. is compared to other industrial countries, but I can live with it.


"Maybe you don't think it is a threat, maybe you like the idea of killing homosexuals. Maybe you agree with Buchanan that we should pull up the draw bridge to the world."


We need to fight Muslims because they might end up like Pat Buchanan? Hmmm...


"I don't know. All I know is you can't stand the United States."


Untrue.


"I also know that the United States has done more for world freedom and wealth and good than any other country in the world. Do you disagree with that Mr. Alger?"


Yes, but I can't imagine how you'd go about measuring it. For example, there's obviously more freedom in the U.S. than in most other countries, and we have a strong democratic tradition, of sorts. On the other hand, the U.S. has been a world leader for several decades in helping autocratic rulers crush freedom, dissent and political competition. So I wouldn't know how to balance these things against each other. Certainly some things in Russia were better after the Soviet Union than under the Czar. But it wouldn't justify or even have anything to do with the morality of the Gulag.

"Please document the fact that Isreal randomly kills civilians. If you can't document it, then stop saying it."


I've described several incidents involving Israeli armed forces in detail in prior posts and given figures for civilian deaths since the beginnig of the current intifada. Look up the figures from the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, Amnesty International (although they might cover the occupied territories) or the UN. Read this month's Harpers Magazine. Here's a link to an article by the late Israeli dissident Israel Shahak discussing settler terrorism in the mid-1990's expressly discussing random murder. You can check electronicintifada.org for updated incidents and the failure of the Israeli government to prosecute them.


http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0294/9402016.htm


"Please explain the link between US sanctions and Iraqi starvation."


Unless the Albright quotation is fabricated, it's been admitted (I found it on two websites). For a fuller treatment, see


http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_183000/183537.stm


Please document that the Palestinian people will be satisfied with self-determination on the West Bank and Gaza and half of Jerusalem. If they really mean it, why did they turn down that offer?


Have you really read the article you're citing? The first two paragraphs are:


"In accounts of what happened at the July 2000 Camp David summit and the following months of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, we often hear about Ehud Barak's unprecedented offer and Yasser Arafat's uncompromising no. Israel is said to have made a historic, generous proposal, which the Palestinians, once again seizing the opportunity to miss an opportunity, turned down. In short, the failure to reach a final agreement is attributed, without notable dissent, to Yasser Arafat.


As orthodoxies go, this is a dangerous one. For it has larger ripple effects. Broader conclusions take hold. That there is no peace partner is one. That there is no possible end to the conflict with Arafat is another.


For a process of such complexity, the diagnosis is remarkably shallow. It ignores history, the dynamics of the negotiations, and the relationships among the three parties. In so doing, it fails to capture why what so many viewed as a generous Israeli offer, the Palestinians viewed as neither generous, nor Israeli, nor, indeed, as an offer."


The article goes on to explain that, although Barak was "prepared" to make significant concessions to the Palestinians, he never got around to doing it. The offer you mention never materialized.

As to the article, either you can't read, or you enjoy twisting the truth. I suspect it is the latter. Now, I'll have to go to the article and point out exactly what the author meant by: "the Palestinians viewed as neither generous, nor Israeli, nor, indeed, as an offer." In short, the fact that the Palestinians viewed it this way, doesn't make it so. The point of the article was that the Palestinians, for various historical/sociological reasons (and also aided by the format adopted by the Clinton administration for peace talks) were incapable of viewing the offer any other way. It was an attempt to defend Arafat's amazing refusal of a good offer that was made!


Pat Charlton

From the article:


"The final and largely unnoticed consequence of Barak's approach is that, strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer. Determined to preserve Israel's position in the event of failure, and resolved not to let the Palestinians take advantage of one-sided compromises, the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal."


You claim that the article (which is very interesting, BTW, thanks for posting it) is "an attempt to defend Arafat's amazing refusal of a good offer that was made!"


So if an offer was made by Israel at Camp David and refused by Arafat, what does the article say that it was?

Good article. I wouldn't characterize it as random killings, but the fact that Isreali soldiers aren't tasked with stopping it is disturbing, actually it is plain out wrong.


This is why I hate the whole conflict. I don't think the Isreali's are good guys. In fact, I think many Isreali's (maybe the majority?) would like nothing more than to annex all of the West Bank. It has been their goal from day one, and I don't see much evidence of it stopping.


I do think that Isreal has a right to exist in Palestine, and that because of Palestinian and Arab tactical and strategic mistakes, Isreal has justifiably been the defender in much of the violence. There is a lot of hate in the region on both sides, and I would like to see peace in the region. I think that has been the goal of all American Presidents and a goal shared by the American people.


To characterize the violence as Isreal's fault is wrong and not justified by history. If you accept the right for Isreal to exist than you can find plenty of wrong on both sides. To this day, I don't think that enough Palestinians are ready to accept the presence of a Jewish state in Palestine, and I think that is the main barrier to peace at this point.


If you don't accept the right of Isreal to exist I can't hardly blame you. The basis of the state is very iffy. If you don't accept it, then war and terrorism is your answer. Sometimes, that is what it all boils down to. I think it is where we are now. The United States believes that Isreal has a right to exist and we are defending that right. We are wrong in some eyes for this, and we will always be wrong. As long as the war continues there will be atrocities committed by both sides. That is the nature of war. The US has fought many good fights and some not so good. In all of them, we committed atrocities which are a black mark on our conscience and something that should be avoided. Still, in the next war we fight, we will committ atrocities.


Isreal committs atrocities, or allows them to continue. That is war. The important question is whether Isreal has the right to fight for their existense.


Pat Charlton

Your article demonstrates that people are hurting in Iraq. It doesn't address why Hussein is unable to buy enough food to feed his people, nor does it address the millions he continues to spend on weapons of mass destruction, arms, and monuments to himslef. The article I provided demonstrated that the Kurds are able to feed their people with the oil revenues.


I don't like sanctions for this very reason. If the regime whose behavior you are trying to modify is evil enough, they will happily let their people suffer why they continue to pursue their misguided policies. Look at N. Korea as another prime example. I'm pretty sure that Saddam isn't suffering much. I wasn't happy with the gulf war, but I've begrudgingly came to the view that it was necessary. Saddam isn't a good guy, and he deserved to be stopped. More importantly, if we committed to stopping him, we should have ended him. The Gulf War was a failure for that reason. If it was Arab pressure that led us to stop in front of Baghdad, we never should have entered the war on their behalf.


Having failed to take him out, I would agree that sanctions were a poor response. Given the sacrifices Saddam was willing to make to defend Kuwait, it is unlikely the sanctions will perform any good.


However, I'm not going to give the US ultimate responsibility for Iraqi's starving when their leader is the one who for four years refused the oil for food program, and once accepting it fails to use the money to buy the food needed. I do blame the US for failing to support the rebellions against Saddam after the war. My question is what do you do now? Do you remove sanctions and the no fly zones and watch thousands of Kurds massacred as a result?


Like I've said, we aren't perfect, and Iraq is a classic example. Not taking out Saddam while encouraging rebellions was stupid and wrong. Now we are in a pickle. My hope is we will take this crisis as an opportunity to finish the job and bring a better government to Iraq.


Pat Charlton

You are welcome.

True, the article didn't describe it as an offer, that was my word. You are correct to point out that the article says that strictly speaking there was no offer. Interesting word "strictly". In the end offer verses bases of discussion are semantics. The Isrealis were offering a great deal as described below..


"Nor were the proposals detailed. If written down, the American ideas at Camp David would have covered no more than a few pages. Barak and the Americans insisted that Arafat accept them as general "bases for negotiations" before launching into more rigorous negotiations.


According to those "bases," Palestine would have sovereignty over 91 percent of the West Bank; Israel would annex 9 percent of the West Bank and, in exchange, Palestine would have sovereignty over parts of pre-1967 Israel equivalent to 1 percent of the West Bank, but with no indication of where either would be. On the highly sensitive issue of refugees, the proposal spoke only of a "satisfactory solution." Even on Jerusalem, where the most detail was provided, many blanks remained to be filled in. Arafat was told that Palestine would have sovereignty over the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City, but only a loosely defined "permanent custodianship" over the Haram al-Sharif, the third holiest site in Islam. The status of the rest of the city would fluctuate between Palestinian sovereignty and functional autonomy. Finally, Barak was careful not to accept anything. His statements about positions he could support were conditional, couched as a willingness to negotiate on the basis of the US proposals so long as Arafat did the same."


So, that was what the Isreali's were putting on the table. Pretty damn good start if you ask me. The Palestinian response..


"Indeed, the Palestinians' principal failing is that from the beginning of the Camp David summit onward they were unable either to say yes to the American ideas or to present a cogent and specific counterproposal of their own. In failing to do either, the Palestinians denied the US the leverage it felt it needed to test Barak's stated willingness to go the extra mile and thereby provoked the President's anger. When Abu Ala'a, a leading Palestinian negotiator, refused to work on a map to negotiate a possible solution, arguing that Israel first had to concede that any territorial agreement must be based on the line of June 4, 1967, the President burst out, "Don't simply say to the Israelis that their map is no good. Give me something better!" When Abu Ala'a again balked, the President stormed out: "This is a fraud. It is not a summit. I won't have the United States covering for negotiations in bad faith. Let's quit!" Toward the end of the summit, an irate Clinton would tell Arafat: "If the Israelis can make compromises and you can't, I should go home. You have been here fourteen days and said no to everything. These things have consequences; failure will mean the end of the peace process.... Let's let hell break loose and live with the consequences."


The Isreali's made concession after concession, and the US was prepared to go to bat for the Palestinians on all of these. The Palestinian response was to just say no, and offer none in return.


Pat Charlton

Oh, yes, now I remember. He's the guy who advocated, in all seriousness, a return to "the American values of 1901". Which, last time I checked, was before them uppity negroes and the wimmen got the vote.


Yep. I'm sure I have a lot to learn from that f. Will.

"The Isreali's made concession after concession"


Nothing in the article suggests anything of the sort.


Although no official record of Camp David has been released, there's more to it than the authors suggest. They're trying to refute the notion that the failure of Camp David is exclusively the fault of Arafat while trying not to blame Israel and while defending the U.S. role, so they're walking a thin line. They provide, however, a useful explanation about why Arafat was scapegoated for it's failure.


But there's a lot they don't mention, and I'll have to get back to you on this. For example, they mention that placed certain conditions on the "bases" for negotiations that you think constitutes an offer, but they don't tell you what those conditions were. They mention the blanks left open on Jerusalem, but other than the Temple Mount they don't tell you what Israel was refusing to negotiate.


According to the Palestinians, the conditions amounted to the loss of sovereignty over Jerusalem, the continued occupation of the West Bank for at least ten years, a form of "sovereignty" that didn't include crucial water rights, the loss of a free access between Gaza and the West Bank, and a final resolution of the settlement question. Given Barak's settlement-building frenzy, it appeared that Camp David merely confirmed to the PA that what they hoped to accomplish at Madrid and Oslo, a real two-state solution, was effectively off the table. I think recent events have vindicated that perception.


As for Arafat's failure to present a "cogent and specific" counterproposal, the article makes it clear that what the Palestinians had been asking for for years -- right of return and sovereinty over the West Bank, Gaza, and part of Jerusalem, was being refused at the outset by Israel. Also remember that there was no specific proposal to counter.

"I'm not going to give the US ultimate responsibility for Iraqi's starving when their leader is the one who for four years refused the oil for food program, and once accepting it fails to use the money to buy the food needed."


There's no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator that causes great suffering among his people. But this doesn't mean that the sanctioning countries are less than fully responsible for the effect of the sanctions. If instead of sanctions (that kill children) we had chosen to murder so many children every month unless and until Saddam abdicated, and he chose not to do so, would anybody reasonably hold the murderers less than "ultimately responsible?"


"I do blame the US for failing to support the rebellions against Saddam after the war. My question is what do you do now? Do you remove sanctions and the no fly zones and watch thousands of Kurds massacred as a result?"


If recent events prove anything, it's that the U.S. could care less if Saddam massacres Kurds; that's not what U.S. policy is about. Nor is it about removing Saddam Hussein. It's about punishing Iraq for having Saddam Hussein as a leader, even though we don't see and won't support any particular alternative to him. It's punishment for it's own sake.

I don't deny Israel's right to exist. I can appreciate the views of refugees that lost homes and farms upon being forced to flee what is now Israel, but I think that such questions are now almost purely academic. Israel is here to stay, it's just a question of where you draw the borders and what rights the 4 million Palestinians will have in the presently occupied territories.


I disagree with your opinion that the Palestinians have refused to accept Israel. For years, the view of most of the world and the moderate elements among the Palestinian leadership, including Arafat and Fatah, was that there should be a two-state solution. Israel won't agree to it, the U.S. won't pressure Israel to agree to it, and that's where we're at today.

At this point I think I'll agree to disagree. We can debate endlessly who wants peace more, but I don't think we'll resolve it.

We aren't killing children, Saddam is. So it is different. Not a lot different, but enough to shame the bulk of the blame for the deaths on Saddam.


I agree more than disagree with your last statement. We've paid nothing but lip service to the desires of the Isreali opposition to topple Saddam. It is a travesty and a failure of US policy.


We are currently expending a great deal of effort to protect the Kurds. While we can quibble over the reason (punish Saddam or protect the Kurds), the reality is we are protecting them by our actions.


Thus, you still haven't answered my question. What do we do now? Life is full of tough choices, and most of them are problems caused by others that you inherit. Drop the criticism (because I agree with most of it) and tell us what we do now. You claim to not hate the US and you claim a desire to make it better. Lets hear it.


Pat Charlton