In the aftermath of Monday's Saudi bombing, Vice President Dick Cheney launched his own preemptive strike against the "Roadmap for Peace," and set the stage for the next attack in the "War on Terror":
The only way to deal with this threat ultimately is to destroy it. There's no treaty can solve this problem. There's no peace agreement, no policy of containment or deterrence that works to deal with this threat. We have to go find the terrorists.
While this approach may be good at winning elections, it's lousy at actually reducing terrorism. In the 20 months since 9/11 we've fought two wars, spent tens of billions of dollars, dropped tens of thousands of bombs, killed thousands of civilians and yet Al Qaeda is "as great of a threat as it was before September 11." (And the occupation of Iraq is just getting started!) Fighting a War on Terror from the supply side, as Cheney is advocating, is as hopeless as fighting, say, a War on Drugs from the supply side. Just like you can't kill all the poppies, you can't kill all the terrorists. Just ask the Israelis.
What's the solution? At the risk of being labeled some kind of anarchist loon for quoting Chomsky, he suggests a stark choice in a piece written at the outset of the war on Iraq:
There are two ways for Washington to respond to the threats engendered by its actions and startling proclamations. One way is to try to alleviate the threats by paying some attention to legitimate grievances, and by agreeing to become a civilized member of a world community, with some respect for world order and its institutions. The other way is to construct even more awesome engines of destruction and domination, so that any perceived challenge, however remote, can be crushed – provoking new and greater challenges.
Chomsky? Or Cheney?
posted by dackMy guess at the strategy is here.
Thanks for letting me use your news.
"Also, I'll be looking for much more to be added to your site. There is *tons* of material out there."
What does this mean? Do you mean for Rummy's lies and closet sections? Or more news?
Posted by: Anon on May 14, 2003 10:29 AMThis might be a little off-topic, but I noticed that today's (Wednesday's) top story is about our new viceroy telling our troops to shoot looters on sight. Here's a synopsis of how the revolution in Iran got started, 25 years ago:
"The spark that erupted into revolution was a protest in Qumm on January 9, 1978.... The police, in an ill-conceived moment, opened fire on the students and killed seventy.
"This set in motion an inescapable pattern that steadily destabilized the Shah's government and reduced its legitimacy in the eyes of both Iranians and the world. In Shi'a tradition, martyrdom requires a commemoration of the martyrs forty days after they have been killed. So forty days after the massacre at Qumm, Iranians took to the streets to commemorate the dead students and, by extension, to protest the government. Again, Iranian police opened fire on the crowd. Over one hundred people were killed in Tabriz on February 18, the fortieth day after the Qumm massacre. On March 30, forty days after the massacre at Tabriz, over one hundred demonstrators were killed in Yazd. And so on. By August, demonstrations had become constant all over Iran."
Posted by: Vin Carreo on May 14, 2003 11:00 AMMasterful strategy. Instead of cowtowing to al Qaeda by solving the problems that fuel terrorism, let's react precisely the way bin Laden predicts we will and worsen the problems. Then we can overreact to the resulting resentment and worsen the problems even more.
At least we get to celebrate every battle we win while losing the war.
Posted by: Sven on May 14, 2003 01:03 PMOh my God. Irony just died. Film at 11:
US criticises security in Riyadh
Posted by: Sven on May 14, 2003 11:08 PMThe other way is to construct even more awesome engines of destruction and domination, so that any perceived challenge, however remote, can be crushed – provoking new and greater challenges.
Obviously, we will be soon very dead.
Posted by: David Carson on May 15, 2003 12:48 PMAnon: No, not more news. More lies. I thought about creating a page like your site during Operation Enduring Freedom there were so many.
Vin: Good link. One thing that strikes me about that history is it took over 1 year from the shooting to the Shah fleeing.
Sven: Funny how a US company, Vinnell Corp., is responsible for training the Saudi National Guard. Damn incompetents.
Posted by: dack on May 15, 2003 01:34 PMPerhaps they could ship ol' Garner down there to shore up security; he did such a bang-up job in Baghdad.
Posted by: Sven on May 15, 2003 03:15 PM