View the h-radhist Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-radhist's April 2002 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-radhist's April 2002 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-radhist home page.
>Osama bin Laden's motive's and ideology is relevant to neither an analysis >of the larger context that allowed the attack to happen, nor a critique of >the United States as a promoter of world inequality and environmental >degradation. The Hitchen's view of the world seems to assume any number of >things, including that one should be loyal to the nation-state in which one >finds oneself, which are far from self-evident. > >Joe Lapsley >U. of Illinois at Chicago > >At 01:04 AM 4/15/02 -0700, you wrote: >>>From: "michael pugliese" <debsian@pacbell.net> >>>Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:07:28 -0700 >> >>> >>>http://www.centerforbookculture.org/context/no10/berube.html >>> >>>Nation and Narration >>> >>>Michael Berube >>> >>>Imagine the 43rd Presidency without Osama bin Laden, the year >>>2001 with an uneventful >>> >>>September 11. >>> >>>It's January 2002, one year after Bush's controversial inauguration, >>>and the White House is a shambles. Having passed the tax bill >>>that was the only rationale for his Presidency in the eyes of >>>his financiers, George W. Bush is in deep doo-doo. The post-New >>>Economy recession is in full swing, and working Americans have >>>discovered to their dismay that the $300-$600 rebates they received >>>back in 2001 will cover a couple of heating bills and winter >>>clothes for the kids, and that's it; over the next fifteen years >>>they'll see another $15 from the tax cut, having no capital gains >>>or estate tax relief to look forward to, while the executives >>>at Halliburton look to pick up $15 billion each. The same holds >>>true for the executives of Enron and their $60 million severance >>>packages (severance packages for CEOs having been exempted from >>>taxation by a little-noticed rider to the bill), except that >>>Enron's spectacular collapse has fired one House investigation >>>into Bush's and Cheney's financial interests in deregulation, >>>one Justice Department investigation into Enron's role in crafting >>>Bush/Cheney energy policy, and another broader Senate investigation >>>into corruption and influence- peddling in the new administration. >>> >>>All three investigations have been denounced by Rush Limbaugh, >>>William Kristol, and the Wall Street Journal as "a monkey wrench >>>in the very engine of prosperity," but nobody is listening to >>>these toadies anymore. They've been discredited not only by their >>>unflagging support for Enron but also by their earlier denunciations >>>of the review of the Florida election returns, which, though >>>ambiguous in many respects, indicated beyond all doubt that more >>>Floridians intended to vote for Gore than for Bush in November >>>2000--and that Florida Republicans, knowing well in advance that >>>they were in for a dogfight, deliberately struck thousands of >>>black voters from the rolls while filling out fraudulent absentee >>>and military ballots months before the election. And since more >>>Americans voted for Gore than for Bush nationwide in the first >>>place, the new President's legitimacy hangs by a thread. The >>>Electoral College is soon to be abolished, and sweeping reforms >>>in voter registration and voting tabulation systems are being >>>enacted in every state of the union. It doesn't help matters >>>that 84 percent of Americans think that Bush "isn't working hard >>>enough" as President, largely because he has not yet returned >>>from summer vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. As for >>>Bush's cabinet . . . what cabinet? O'Neill and Rumsfeld have >>>made early departures, as predicted by Beltway insiders from >>>day one; Gale Norton has resigned under pressure after having >>>been discovered clubbing baby seals off the coast of Alaska; >>>and attorney general Ashcroft is widely criticized for continuing >>>to hold his controversial "prayer breakfasts" in which he calls >>>on Jesus Christ to "smite the unbelievers."I think it's safe >>>to say that the events of September 11 changed everything, don't >>>you? >>> >>>* * * >>> >>>Like the deadly particulate matter floating in the air of lower >>>Manhattan, the political fallout from September's terrorist attacks >>>will have immeasurable toxic effects for decades. The narrative >>>of that fallout remains to be written--indeed, it remains to >>>be lived and experienced. But it's already becoming possible >>>to see several important story lines taking shape in U.S. political >>>culture. >>> >>>The early days now seem like days of hysteria: there was the >>>justifiable hysteria of New Yorkers who feared that the bridges >>>and tunnels were the next targets, and there was the ugly hysteria >>>of right-wing pundits for whom the attacks changed nothing but >>>the volume of their daily screeds. One unwittingly ludicrous >>>example was provided by the celebrated hack Shelby Steele, who >>>was writing an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal denouncing the >>>UN conference on racism when the planes hit, and merely tweaked >>>it into a September 17 column denouncing global crybabies in >>>general--some of whom were apparently flying those planes, although >>>the connection wasn't made quite clear. (News flash: advocates >>>of reparations for slavery kill 6000 in New York!!) More dangerous >>>were the early responses of people like Andrew Sullivan--and >>>Ann Coulter and Rich Lowry of the National Review; Coulter went >>>so far as to lose her job at the Review, less for the content >>>of her written work (according to editor Jonah Goldberg's October >>>3 column) than for her public demeanor after her incoherent follow–up >>>essay was spiked. And Goldberg's postmortem has the ring of truth, >>>for Coulter's now-infamous line, "We should invade their countries, >>>kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," was after >>>all not terribly different from Lowry's plan for "identifying >>>the one or two nations most closely associated with our enemies, >>>giving them 24 hours notice to evacuate their capitals (in keeping >>>with our desire to wage war as morally as possible), then systematically >>>destroying every significant piece of military, financial, and >>>political infrastructure in those cities." >>> >>>This is strong stuff--so strong, in fact, that in response to >>>Sullivan's vile suggestion that Gore voters would form a "fifth >>>column" of decadent leftists in university towns and on the coasts >>>(you know, where a lot of those decadent Oscar Wilde types live), >>>any rational person could've replied that throughout September >>>and October, you couldn't do better recruiting work for Al Qaeda >>>in Muslim nations than to distribute free copies of the National >>>Review. >>> >>>Of course, some of the right's hysteria was understandable: remember, >>>they excoriated Arab terrorists for days after the bombing in >>>Oklahoma City, only to be compelled to swallow hard once the >>>white kid with the crewcut emerged as the perp. Think of their >>>tension, their long-unfulfilled desires to rage, rage against >>>the backward cultures of Islam: by September 11, 2001, the right >>>had been waiting more than six years to vent, and some of them >>>simply lost control. >>> >>>Interestingly, though--and devastatingly for the left--they reined >>>themselves in; after the first few queasy weeks, there would >>>be no more talk of crusades and conversions and infinite justice. >>>For who knew, until September 11, that Grover Norquist, longtime >>>tax nut and conservative organizer extraordinaire, had been cultivating >>>Arab-American voters for the GOP? (So assiduously, it turned >>>out, that he'd had his President lunching with some Hamas and >>>Hezbollah supporters, as Franklin Foer pointed out in the New >>>Republic.) And who knew that the hard right would scotch its >>>plans for systematically destroying the capitals of Muslim nations >>>the minute they realized that they couldn't get to Afghanistan >>>without going through Pakistan? >>> >>>Prevented by their own President from conducting a hate campaign >>>against Arabs, the harpies of the culture-war right turned to >>>a safer domestic target--students and professors. In a remarkably >>>crude, incompetent pamphlet, the Joe Lieberman-Lynne Cheney outfit, >>>the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, combed college campuses >>>for seditious statements like "ignorance breeds hate," "hate >>>breeds hate," "our grief is not a cry for war," "an eye for an >>>eye leaves the world blind," "knowledge is good," and "if Osama >>>bin Laden is confirmed to be behind the attacks, the United States >>>should bring him before an international tribunal on charges >>>of crimes against humanity." (All but one of these are actual >>>statements cited by ACTA as evidence of insufficient patriotism >>>on U.S. campuses. Afficionados and adepts will recognize the >>>last item as the words of Joel Beinin, the antepenultimate item >>>as the words of Mahatma Gandhi, and the penultimate item as the >>>motto of Faber College in Animal House.) Lynne Cheney has not >>>commented on the pamphlet, and may in fact be in a secure undisclosed >>>location for all I know; Lieberman's office has issued one of >>>those "distancing" statements that stops short of taking the >>>Senator's name off the letterhead. >>> >>>Meanwhile, even as the New Republic continued to publish the >>>work of liberal writers, the editorial staff collectively staged >>>what Stuart Hall once called the Great Moving Right Show, and >>>kept right on moving until they passed the National Review. Think >>>I'm kidding? Count the number of times each magazine has criticized >>>Ariel Sharon since September 11, and you'll get some sense of >>>why I respect the National Review's Middle East coverage more. >>>Or read every post-9/11 editorial signed by the editors, like >>>the October 29 clarion call to "weaponize" our courage. (In his >>>bunker in Baghdad, a shaken Saddam Hussein looks up from his >>>copy of TNR: "Nothing would please me more than to fight American >>>armed forces in the daughter of the mother of all battles--but >>>I cannot face the fearsome senior editors of this weekly magazine.") >>>Or look at their vicious attacks on Colin Powell, who is apparently >>>unfit to run the State Department and should be replaced by someone >>>wiser, someone with a firmer grasp of the perfidy of Arabs, perhaps >>>someone who has attended the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced >>>International Studies, like editor Lawrence F. Kaplan. >>> >>>* * * >>> >>>The narrative of the left is more tangled and more somber. But >>>before I remark on the ways the Chomskian left has consigned >>>itself to the dustbin of history, let me go back to those early >>>days of hysteria and say a few words in defense of people I now >>>disagree with: it was entirely plausible, in those first few >>>days, to think that the United States had received some kind >>>of global comeuppance. Bless their hearts, the diehards of the >>>anti-imperialist left had always had the integrity and the conscience >>>to say publicly that the United States had too often acted unilaterally >>>and unethically in the post-1945 world, often against its own >>>realpolitik interests as well as against its own democratic ideals. >>>The anti-imperialists were right about Vietnam, they were right >>>about Chile, they were right about El Salvador and Nicaragua, >>>they were right about Indonesia in 1975 and they were right about >>>Iran in 1953. It was not initially unreasonable for any of them >>>to think, as the World Trade Center collapsed five blocks from >>>my best friend's apartment, son of a bitch, someone's gotten >>>to us at last. Such a sentiment, despite the vitriol heaped upon >>>it by the right, implied no sympathy with the attackers; the >>>anti-imperialist left, at its best, despised anti–democratic >>>forces no matter where they came from. It merely registered the >>>sorry fact that the United States had, indeed, too often given >>>the wretched of the earth cause to hate us. >>> >>>But when the narrative of the attacks became more complex, the >>>Chomskian left did not. Slowly it became clear that for all its >>>past crimes, the U.S. government wasn't nearly as proximate a >>>cause of the attack as were, say, the governments of Saudi Arabia >>>and Egypt, U.S. "allies" who'd been dancing a dicey pas de deux >>>with their own Islamist radicals for twenty years in order to >>>keep the lid on the domestic unrest created in part by their >>>own corruption. And slowly it became clear that Osama bin Laden >>>and Al Qaeda were not animated by any of the causes dear to American >>>leftists: the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon >>>were not, it seemed, symbolic strikes against U.S. unilateralism >>>with regard to missile defense, post-Kyoto energy policy, landmine >>>treaties, or the rights of children. They were not cosmic payback >>>for our support of Suharto or Pinochet or Marcos or Rios Montt >>>or Mohammed Reza Pahlevi. They were not aimed at Katherine Harris >>>or Kenneth Starr or William Rehnquist. Indeed, the more the West >>>learned about bin Laden, the more we were led down strange narrative >>>byways we hadn't even considered as tangents to the main event: >>>he was convinced by the Somalia expedition that the U.S. was >>>a paper tiger? He wants American soldiers, especially women, >>>to stop desecrating the land of the two holy mosques? He speaks >>>of "eighty years" of Arab abasement, harking back to the end >>>of World War I? >>> >>>Well, that should have given anyone pause for thought. Maybe >>>if bin Laden had denounced the CIA's overthrow of Mossadeq, maybe >>>if he'd jeered at our futile attempts to play Iran off Iraq and >>>vice versa throughout Reagan's presidency, and maybe if he wasn't >>>carrying around one of those theories about the global Jewish >>>conspiracy, he'd have had a shred of credibility with me. But >>>Somalia? Somalia really was an attempt at liberal-internationalist >>>humanitarianism, and as for the eighty-year-old Sykes-Picot agreement >>>divvying up Arab provinces after World War I, there aren't that >>>many American leftists committed to the restoration of the caliphate, >>>so it's hard for me to see the appeal on that count as well. >>>In fact, as Chris Suellentrop of Slate observed, the U.S. doesn't >>>even deserve any grief about the end of the caliphate: "It would >>>be nice," he wrote, "if bin Laden would note that the United >>>States objected to the Sykes-Picot agreement as a betrayal of >>>the principle of self- determination, but that's probably asking >>>for too much." There's no doubt that our government has committed >>>crimes against humanity in our name. But Somalia and Sykes- Picot >>>aren't among them. >>> >>>So, faced with an enemy as incomprehensible and as implacable >>>as bin Laden, much of the left checked the man's policy positions >>>on women, homosexuality, secularism, and facial hair, and slowly >>>backed out of the room. They didn't move right, as so many Chomskian >>>leftists have charged; they simply decided that the September >>>11 attacks were the work of religious fanatics who had no conceivable >>>point of contact with anything identifiable as a left project >>>save for a human-rights complaint about the sanctions against >>>Iraq. As Marx himself observed, there are a number of social >>>systems more oppressive than that of capitalism. Al Qaeda and >>>the Taliban are good cases in point. >>> >>>For almost a month, the dispute between the Chomsky left and >>>the Hitchens left was largely a theoretical affair, featuring >>>a sweetly pointless debate in the Nation over whose condemnation >>>of Clinton's 1998 cruise-missile strike against the Al-Shifa >>>pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan was more thorough and/or courageous; >>>then the bombs started dropping on Afghanistan, and the camps >>>hardened into place, with leftists who'd denounced the Taliban >>>steadily for five years now denouncing a military action designed >>>to remove the Taliban from power. This is perhaps the most important >>>episode in the many narratives of September 11, because it represented >>>the earthquake that had been building along a fault line in the >>>U.S. left dating back to the first Bush Administration's operations >>>in Panama and Kuwait, and because it has ramifications for the >>>future of U.S. foreign policy for decades to come. >>> >>>A large part of the split had to do with the simple fact that >>>bombs were dropping. For U.S. leftists schooled in the lessons >>>of Cambodia, Libya, and the School of the Americas, all U.S. >>>bombing actions are suspect: they are announced by cadaverous >>>white guys with bad hair, they are covered by seven cable channels >>>competing with one another for the catchiest "New War" slogan >>>and Emmy awards for creative flag display, and they invariably >>>kill civilians, the poor, the wretched, the disabled. Surely, >>>there is much to hate about any bombing campaign. >>> >>>Yet who would deny that a nation, once attacked, has the right >>>to respond with military force, and who seriously believes that >>>anyone could undertake any "nation-building" enterprise in Afghanistan >>>without driving the Taliban from power first? Very well, some >>>of my post-September interlocutors said, the Taliban must go, >>>but not by force. A curious answer: for why would any clear-thinking >>>leftist believe that the Taliban could be removed by persuasion >>>alone, as if, like Al Gore after the Supreme Court's supremely >>>corrupt decision in Bush v. Gore, they would smile wryly into >>>the cameras and say, "It's time for us to go"? >>> >>>The arguments against military force started flooding the left-leaning >>>listservs. One, the link between the attacks and the Taliban >>>was not strong enough to justify bombing. Two, we had supported >>>bin Laden indirectly back when he was one of the mujahedeen fighting >>>the USSR. Three, the terrain and the enemy would quickly lead >>>us into a quagmire. Four, the bombing of Afghanistan was the >>>moral equivalent of the September 11 attacks--or even worse, >>>since the U.S. was attacking from a position of wealth and strength. >>>Five, there would be no "nation-building" after the ouster of >>>the Taliban--just more bombing, this time in some other impoverished >>>nation. Six, the U.S. had been a global aggressor for so long >>>and with such impunity that it had no moral ground from which >>>to operate even after being directly attacked. >>> >>>These are the arguments that have insured the Chomskian left's >>>irrelevance to foreign policy debate for the foreseeable future, >>>and I confess I am not always sure why anyone would make them >>>in any case. Arguments three and five are relatively innocuous, >>>being merely predictive, but the rest range from merely illogical >>>(one, two, six) to morally odious (four). For instance: the fact >>>that a U.S. government was once foolish enough--or Zbigniew Brzezinski >>>was once cavalier enough--to fund the Arab "Afghanis" in the >>>1980s does not mean that a U.S. government is barred from opposing >>>any of their progeny now. The Chomskian left has been playing >>>this tune for some time now--today's public enemy was yesterday's >>>CIA darling--and while it does serve a heuristic function, in >>>that it reminds amnesiac Americans that baddies such as Saddam >>>and Noriega and Suharto didn't appear on the world stage out >>>of nowhere, it doesn't serve any substantive function except >>>obfuscation. Would the Chomskian left seriously prefer that the >>>U.S. stick by its totalitarian ex-clients no matter what, as >>>the Cold Warriors of the right once urged us to do? >>> >>>The argument about our past dealings with bin Laden is thus a >>>smokescreen, as was Chomsky's argument in 1999 that our intervention >>>against Milosevic in Kosovo could not be motivated by "humanitarian" >>>concerns because if we were serious about humanitarianism we >>>would also have intervened in East Timor. Even Chomsky's fans >>>will recall that this argument was not a clarion call for wider >>>U.S. interventions around the world beginning in East Timor; >>>it was an argument designed to obfuscate the issue at hand in >>>Kosovo, namely, allegations that the Serbs were engaged in genocide. >>>Similarly, in addressing the question of whether the U.S. had >>>the right to respond militarily after September 11, Chomsky offered >>>more smoke: "Congress has authorized the use of force against >>>any individuals or countries the President determines to be involved >>>in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as ultra-criminal. >>>That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same people would >>>have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after the >>>U.S. had rejected the orders of the World Court to terminate >>>its 'unlawful use of force' against Nicaragua and had vetoed >>>a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe >>>international law." Very well; with regard to Reagan's contra >>>war and the mining of Nicaragua's harbors, Nicaragua and the >>>World Court were in the right, and the U.S. acted like a rogue >>>nation. How exactly does this prove that "every supporter" regards >>>the use of force as "ultra-criminal" with regard to September >>>11? >>> >>>The fissure on the left that began in 1989-90 and became visible >>>in Kosovo is now a chasm. In retrospect, Kosovo didn't have quite >>>the impact on the left it might have, partly because conservatives >>>also opposed that operation on the grounds that Clinton had ordered >>>it (by 1999, Clinton could have launched a campaign against childhood >>>diseases and House Republicans would've responded by declaring >>>measles a vegetable and bundling it into school breakfast programs), >>>partly because of Monica, and partly because it was shrouded >>>in murk from Srebrenica to Rambouillet. But many of the most >>>vocal opponents of the U.S.–led NATO intervention in Kosovo are >>>now the most vocal opponents to the U.S.–led intervention in >>>Afghanistan, which suggests two things: first, that the fact >>>of civilian deaths on U.S. soil is in an important sense immaterial >>>to their position on U.S. policy, and second, that on the grounds >>>they offer today, they will never support another American military >>>action of any kind. Permanently alienated by Vietnam, by Chile, >>>by Indonesia, or by Reagan's deadly adventures in Central America, >>>they're gone and they're not coming back, not even if hijackers >>>plow planes into towers in downtown Manhattan. >>> >>>The right is just gleeful about this, of course, because it needs >>>the Chomskian left for effigies, hate minutes, election-year >>>fundraising and general vituperation. Christopher Hitchens seems >>>pretty happy as well, since he gets to settle a bunch of old >>>scores and coin acerbic new phrases like "the Milosevic left" >>>and "the Taliban left." But for all my sympathy with Hitchens, >>>I cannot share his sense of exhilaration; instead, as I watch >>>that shard of the left sailing away, I modulate between relief >>>and sorrow. Relief, because the break is decisive and clarifying, >>>highlighting all those who cannot use the word "heroes" without >>>scare quotes, all those who cannot bring themselves to utter >>>anything about freedom and democracy if doing so will make them >>>say words that might also have come from the mouth of a conservative. >>>Sorrow, because there will soon come a time when I am going to >>>miss these people, when I am going to wish they had some clout >>>in domestic politics. Not because I will agree with them, necessarily, >>>but because--unlike liberals--they do not make compromises, and >>>they know how to get mad. Liberals are good at patient deliberation >>>and stress abatement in the Mister Rogers mode, which is why >>>conservatives simply tear them from limb to limb whenever anything >>>important--like, say, a Presidential election recount in southern >>>Florida--is at stake: while the liberals hold a seminar on the >>>lessons of 1876, Tom DeLay flies in a bunch of goons to stop >>>the recount by force. Liberals like that image of themselves: >>>so what if those firebreathing yahoos run the country? At least >>>we've got our sanity and our Birkenstocks. But for precisely >>>this reason, liberals are not very good at organizing demonstrations >>>and mass protests when the President announces the creation of >>>military tribunals or the abrogation of client-attorney privilege >>>in cases where the client has an Al- in his last name. How many >>>liberals stood up and shamed John Ashcroft when he appeared before >>>the Senate on December 6 and impugned the patriotism of civil >>>libertarians? How many liberals voted against the USA-PATRIOT >>>act? How many liberals took to the streets when Bush issued Executive >>>Order 13233, overturning the Presidential Records Act and closing >>>the archives on the Reagan-Bush years? Who's kidding whom? This >>>is just not the kind of thing liberals do these days. >>> >>>But there's still plenty of mobilizing to do on the domestic >>>front for everyone who prefers democracy to mild totalitarianism, >>>and this should include everyone from William Safire to Katha >>>Pollitt. The narrative of that struggle will doubtless be experimental >>>and self-reflexive and full of postmodern historiographic metafiction >>>in the mode of Ishmael Reed and E. L. Doctorow, but if it's going >>>to be a narrative any of us will want to tell our children at >>>night, first we're going to have to remind liberals how to get >>>good and mad. And we should do it sooner rather than later--that >>>is, before rather than after Ashcroft sets up those new-for-2002 >>>Preventative Detention Camps to keep track of people who show >>>signs of dissenting, demurring, or otherwise disparaging the >>>Department of Justice's good-faith efforts to ensure domestic >>>tranquility. Because by that time, we won't even be able to tell >>>our stories to our lawyers. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
|