These posts are either "jump pages" for my weblog or posts-in-process that will eventually appear there. For what it's worth, here's an archive of these random bits. The picture to the left is by a famous comic book artist.
View current page
...more recent posts
Will the Opposition Lead?
By PAUL BERMAN
("I wish the Democrats would...put...together a...shadow government...to explain the dangers of modern totalitarianism.")
The war in Iraq may end up going well or catastrophically, but either way, this war has always been central to the broader war on terror. That is because terror has never been a matter of a few hundred crazies who could be rounded up by the police and special forces. Terror grows out of something larger an enormous wave of political extremism.
The wave began to swell some 25 years ago and by now has swept across a big swath of the Muslim world. The wave is not a single thing. It consists of several movements or currents, which are entirely recognizable. These movements draw on four tenets: (i) a belief in a paranoid conspiracy theory, according to which cosmically evil Jews, Masons, Crusaders and Westerners are plotting to annihilate Islam or subjugate the Arab people [why single out Arabs here? do paranoids in Iran or Pakistan not fear subjugation too?]; (ii) a belief in the need to wage apocalyptic war against the cosmic conspiracy; (iii) an expectation that, post-apocalypse, the Islamic caliphate of ancient times will re-emerge as a utopian new society; (iv) and a belief that, meanwhile, death is good, and should be loved and revered.
A quarter century ago, some of the extremist movements pictured the coming utopia in a somewhat secular light, and others in a theocratic light. These differences, plus a few other quarrels, led to hatred and even war, like the one between Iran and Iraq. [Oh, those little quarrels.] The visible rivalries left an impression in some people's minds that nothing tied together these sundry movements.
American foreign policy acted on that impression, and tried to play the movements against one another, and backed every non-apocalyptic dictator who promised to keep the extremists under control. The American policy was cynical and cruel. It did nothing to prevent those sundry movements and dictators from committing murders on a gigantic scale.
Nor did the policy produce anything good for America, in the long run. For the sundry movements did share a common outlook, which ought to have been obvious all along the paranoid and apocalyptic outlook of European fascism from long ago, draped in Muslim robes. [Islamofascism!] These movements added up to a new kind of modern totalitarianism. And, in time, the new totalitarianism found its common point, on which everyone could agree. This was the shared project of building the human bomb. [Kind of a Manhattan Project on the cheap.] The Shiite theocrats of Iran pioneered the notion of suicide terror. And everyone else took it up: Sunni theocrats, Baathist anti-theocrats of Iraq and Syria, the more radical Palestinian nationalists, and others, too.
The Sept. 11 attacks came from a relatively small organization. But Al Qaeda was a kind of foam thrown up by the larger extremist wave. The police and special forces were never going to be able to stamp out the Qaeda cells so long as millions of people around the world accepted the paranoid and apocalyptic views and revered suicide terror. The only long-term hope for tamping down the terrorist impulse was to turn America's traditional policies upside down, and come out for once in favor of the liberal democrats of the Muslim world. This would mean promoting a counter-wave of liberal and rational ideas to combat the allure of paranoia and apocalypse.
Some people argue that anti-totalitarian revolutions can never be brought about from outside. The history of World War II says otherwise. Some people respond with the observation that Germany, Italy and Japan are nothing like the Muslim world. In Afghanistan, the American-led invasion has nonetheless brought about an anti-totalitarian revolution. A pretty feeble revolution, true but even feeble progress suggests large possibilities.
The whole point in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, from my perspective, was to achieve those large possibilities right in the center of the Muslim world, where the ripples might lead in every direction. Iraq was a logical place to begin because, for a dozen years, the Baathists had been shooting at American and British planes, and inciting paranoia and hatred against the United States, and encouraging the idea that attacks can successfully be launched against American targets, and giving that idea some extra oomph with the bluff about fearsome weapons. The Baathists, in short, contributed their bit to the atmosphere that led to Sept. 11. Yet Iraq could also boast of liberal democrats and some admirable achievements in the Kurdish north, which meant there were people to support, and not just to oppose. Such were the hopes.
As for the results well, in one respect, these have turned out to be, in spite of everything, almost comically successful. Baathism's super-weapons may have been a figment of the universal imagination; [no, Saddam was trying to develop them 15 years ago; by 2003 they were a figment of the GOP imagination] but as soon as the United States elevated this figment into a world crisis, astonishing progress was made in tracking down weapons programs and trafficking in Libya, Iran, Dubai and Pakistan [GOP talking point]. Some people will go on insisting that sudden progress on these matters has nothing to do with Iraq, and the dominoes tumbled simultaneously by sheer coincidence but some people will believe anything.
Nobody can doubt, however, that even in its planning stages, the invasion and occupation of Iraq were depressingly bungled. The whole thing was done in an odd mood of hysteria and parsimony, a bad combination. It is tempting to conclude that, all in all, we would have been better off staying out of Iraq altogether and maybe this will turn out to be the case.
But everyone who feels drawn to that conclusion had better acknowledge its full meaning: the unavoidable implication that we would be better off today with Saddam Hussein in power; better off with economic sanctions still strangling the Iraqi people; better off with American army bases still occupying Saudi soil (Osama bin Laden's original grievance against us); and better off without the progress on weapons proliferation in the Muslim world (unless you believe in the sheer-coincidence theory, in which case, you think that progress would have happened willy-nilly [you silly person, you]). That is a pretty horrifying set of alternatives.
Now we need allies people who will actually do things, and not just offer benedictions from afar. Unfortunately how many misfortunes can fall upon our heads at once? finding allies may not be easy. Entire populations around the world feel a personal dislike for America's president, which makes it difficult for even the friendliest of political leaders in some countries to take pro-American positions.
But the bigger problem has to do with public understandings of the war. People around the world may not want to lift a finger in aid so long as the anti-totalitarian logic of the war remains invisible to them. President Bush ought to have cleared up this matter. He has, in fact, spoken about conspiracy theories and hatred (including at Tuesday's press conference). He has spoken about a new totalitarianism, and has even raised the notion of a war of ideas. [But Bush is a loon, Paul!]
But Mr. Bush muddied these issues long ago by putting too much emphasis on weapons in Iraq (and his gleeful opponents have muddied things even further by pretending that weapons were the only reason for war). He muddied the issues again by doing relatively little to promote a war of ideas quite as if his loftier comments were merely blather. His national security statement of 2002 flatly declared that totalitarianism no longer existed a strange thing to say. War requires clarity. Here is incoherence.
Somebody else will have to straighten out these confusions, then. I think it will have to be the Democrats at least those Democrats who accept the anti-totalitarian logic. And why shouldn't they show a bit of leadership? After the Spanish election last month, America needed to reach out to the new Spanish leader, Josι Luis Rodrνguez Zapatero, and his voters. Mr. Bush was in no position to do this, given that in November he had delivered a speech that was all-too characteristically insulting to the European left. Instead, it was Senator John Kerry who made a public appeal to Mr. Zapatero to keep troops in Iraq.
I wish the Democrats would follow Mr. Kerry's example and take it a step further by putting together a small contingent of Democrats with international reputations, a kind of shadow government not to undermine American policy but to achieve what Mr. Bush seems unable to do. The Democrats ought to explain the dangers of modern totalitarianism and the goals of the war. They ought to make the call for patience and sacrifice that Mr. Bush has steadfastly avoided. And the Democratic contingent ought to go around the world making that case.
The Democrats ought to thank and congratulate the countries that have sent troops, and ought to remind the economically powerful Switzerlands of this world that they, too, have responsibilities. The Democrats ought to assure everyone that support for a successful outcome in Iraq does not have to mean support for George W. Bush. And how should the Democrats make these several arguments? They should speak about something more than the United Nations and stability in Iraq. They should talk about fascism. About death cults. About the experiences of the 20th century. About the need for democratic solidarity.
This is not a project for after the election this is a project for right now. America needs allies. Today, and not just tomorrow. And America needs leaders. If the Bush administration cannot rally support around the world, let other people give it a try.
Bush: 'What we're doing in Iraq is right'
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Scott Lindlaw
April 11, 2004 | FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) -- President Bush on Sunday braced the country for the possibility of more American casualties in Iraq while saying the U.S.-led mission is just. "Obviously every day I pray there is less casualty, but I know what we are doing in Iraq is right," Bush said after attending an Easter service at a chapel on this sprawling base that has 12,000 troops now in Iraq. At least nine died in Iraq in the past week.
"It was a tough week last week and my prayers and thoughts are with those who pay the ultimate price for our security," the president said.
"Today, on bended knee, I thanked the good Lord for protecting those of our troops overseas," he said before heading to a military hospital to meet with wounded soldiers who have returned recently from Iraq. Bush made no remarks as he left the hospital, where he met with 11 soldiers, awarding Purple Heart medals to 10 of them.
In fighting across Iraq over the past week, almost 50 American soldiers and more than 550 Iraqis have been killed. At least 649 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.
Bush said it was "hard to tell" whether Americans should expect to see more of the kind of deadly weeks that the military just sustained. But, he said, "We're plenty tough."
Bush said he had spoken twice in the past few days with Gen. John Abizaid, the overall commanded (sic) of the Iraq war, and that Abizaid "knows full well when he speaks to me, if he needs additional manpower, he can ask for it."
Abizaid said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that 129,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has indicated that U.S. commanders want to hold that level for some time rather than reduce to 115,000 as previously planned.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle said the past week of spiraling violence suggests more troops are needed.
"It's clear that we're stretched, and the Iraqi security are not prepared yet to fight and to turn back insurgents," Chairman Richard Lugar of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told "Fox News Sunday."
Looking to the administration's June 30 deadline for turning over sovereignty to the Iraqis, Lugar said: "It's a short period of time. Credibility is at stake. Now, that means you devote whatever you need to it and make sure it gets done."
Fellow Republican Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine., echoed worries about troop levels and said the administration may need to reconsider the June 30 date.
"I don't see how you can possibly transfer power in fewer than 90 days when we have such an unstable security situation," Collins said on ABC's "This Week."
Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, who has pressed for more troops, also said the administration needs to do a better job of reaching out to the world for help.
On CBS' "Face the Nation," Biden said French President Jacques Chirac has told him that France would send troops as part of a NATO contingent, as long as the United States had relinquished control to an international body, such as the United Nations.
Bush blamed the increased violence on "people trying to stop progress toward democracy" and "the violence was thrust upon innocent Iraqis."
For a second straight year, Bush celebrated Easter at Fort Hood, making the 50-mile helicopter flight from his Crawford ranch. It was the president's first public appearance since he arrived for an Easter break on his ranch on April 5.
Thirty-one troops from Fort Hood who were wounded in a firefight in Baghdad last week were airlifted back to the central Texas base for medical treatment and family reunions.
"I value my time with family members of those who have sacrificed on behalf of the country and today I ask for God's blessing for troops overseas," Bush said.
Accompanying the president on the half-day trip were his wife, mother-in-law, twin daughters and his parents.
Fort Hood is the largest active duty armored post in the military, covering 339 square miles.
9 Dead, 10 Coffins Found in Fresno Home
BRIAN SKOLOFF
Associated Press March 13
FRESNO, Calif. - Police discovered nine bodies intertwined in a pile of clothes at a Fresno home and 10 coffins stacked along a wall, and were trying to determine if some ritual was involved in the slaughter.
A 57-year-old man surrendered to police after walking out of the house covered in what appeared to be blood.
The victims were seven children ranging in age from 1 to 8, a 20-year-old woman and a 17-year-old girl. All were thought to be the children of Marcus Wesson, whom police handcuffed following a brief standoff.
Authorities said Saturday that Wesson had been arrested on suspicion of killing the victims, but wouldn't comment until an afternoon news conference on what charges prosecutors might file.
The grim scene caused even veteran officers to weep.
Police Chief Jerry Dyer wiped tears from his eyes as officers carried the bodies from the home, cradling the youngest ones in their arms.
"I've been with the Fresno Police Department for 25 years, and I've never experienced anything of this nature," he said.
Dyer said the victims probably were Wesson's children. "There may have been some type of ritual involved," he said.
Officers were originally called to the scene Friday afternoon for a child custody dispute.
Ten coffins lined a wall inside the home's front room. The bodies were so entangled in a pile of clothing that it took hours for investigators to reach a final count, police said.
The police chief declined to say how the victims died, but the scene was so gruesome some of the first officers into the house were placed on administrative leave and were being counseled Friday night.
Six police chaplains were at the house throughout the evening as detectives continued to gather evidence.
Officers were called to the home Friday afternoon by two women who said a man had their children and would not release them.
The man initially ignored orders to come out, running into a back bedroom as two other women fled the house. They were unharmed.
Police believe the suspect fathered the victims with the four women. They did not identify the women or the victims.
A neighbor, Chris Tognazzini, said he heard two gunshots moments before police arrived.
Dyer said the women who called authorities told them they had given custody of their children to Wesson two years ago and now wanted them back.
The slayings shocked authorities in Fresno, a city of 440,000 about 190 miles southeast of San Francisco. Dyer said the city had seen three murders in the last 2 1/2 months, the fewest number for a 10-week period in more than three decades.
The nine deaths represent the largest mass killing in this San Joaquin Valley city since 1993, when seven people were killed in rural Fresno.
"The only thing we can do now is mourn. We mourn for the kids, we mourn for the police," said Mayor Alan Autry. "We will never be the same again."
Wesson had a strong influence on his sons, said Florian Tan, who in 2001 took over the martial arts school where three of the sons attended classes.
Each boy had to earn a black belt in aikido in order to leave home when he reached manhood, Tan said.
"They said they had to go through his program," which included martial arts training, Tan said. He added that two of the sons, now in their twenties, earned black belts and a teenage boy is still enrolled at the school.
Neighbors who milled around outside said they knew little about Wesson or the house where a large yellow bus was parked in the driveway.
"He never said 'Hi,'" said Linda Morales. "I'd drive by and he'd make a point to turn his face."
Another neighbor, Johnny Rios, said that on many nights he heard loud banging coming from the house, as though the people inside were building something.
"There was something up over there," Rios said.