corrente

Soros makes a strategic contribution. Where is Kerry, where is the DNC, and where are we on a positive way forward from Iraq? We can't really have Fundamentalists flying airplanes into our buildings, or letting off loose nukes in our cities, can we? So what is the liberal, and what is the Democratic vision? How can our positive core values work in the 21st Century?

The Bush administration is in the habit of waging personal vendettas against those who criticize its policies, but bit by bit the evidence is accumulating that the invasion of Iraq was among the worst blunders in U.S. history.

War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. The metaphor suited the purposes of the administration because it invoked our military might. But military actions require an identifiable target, preferably a state. As a result, the war on terrorism has been directed primarily against states like Afghanistan that are harboring terrorists, not at pursuing the terrorists themselves.

This does not mean that we should not use military means to capture and bring terrorists to justice when appropriate. But to protect ourselves against terrorism, we need precautionary measures, awareness and intelligence gathering — all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate. Declaring war on the very people we need to enlist against terrorism is a huge mistake. We are bound to create some innocent victims, and the more of them there are, the greater the resentment and the better the chances that some victims will turn into the next perpetrators.

The war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush administration is more likely to bring about a permanent state of war than an end to terrorism. Terrorists are invisible; therefore, they will never disappear. They will continue to provide a convenient pretext for the pursuit of American supremacy by military means. That, in turn, will continue to generate resistance, setting up a vicious circle of escalating violence.

The important thing to remember about terrorism is that it is a reflexive phenomenon. Its impact and development depend on the actions and reactions of the victims. If the victims react by turning into perpetrators, terrorism triumphs in the sense of engendering more and more violence. That is what the fanatically militant Islamists who perpetrated the Sept. 11 attacks must have hoped to achieve. By allowing a "war" on terrorism to become our principal preoccupation, we are playing straight into the terrorists' hands: They — not we — are setting our priorities.

By using the war on terror as a pretext for asserting our military supremacy, we are embarking on an escalating spiral of terrorist/ counterterrorist violence.

And now the policy proposal that isn't:

If instead we were to set an example of cooperative behavior, we could not only alleviate poverty, misery and injustice in the world, but also gain support for defending ourselves against terrorism. We will be the greatest beneficiaries if we do so.
(from George Soros in the LA Times)

Though I'm not sure what "cooperation" would look like. Readers?

NOTE Clearly, nothing can be done until Bush is no longer President, because nobody in their right mind would trust him, and threats and force can only carry us so far. It also seems clear to me that the Fundamentalist forces abroad and in the United States are one and the same, in that they both seek to escalate the cycle of violence (see Campaign Against Fundamentalism, back here.) I'm not clear on how a policy of cooperation can be started without the uncooperative acts of preventing Bush from being elected, and ridding the SCLM and the policy making apparatus of Fundamentalist influence.