Re: "a new war on terrorism"

>>>>> "main" == main office <B> writes:

  main> At 02:42 PM 9/19/01 -0500, you wrote:
  >> >>>>> "main" == main office <B> writes:
  >>
  main> Kendall, I agree with your concern. I believe we must respond
  main> with extreme malice against any terrorist act. However it does
  main> not need to be today. Time is on our side.
  >>
  >> That's not my position, at least insofar as responding with
  >> "extreme malice" implies responding neither with due regard to
  >> proportionality and necessity,
  main> ***What is a "proportional" response to destroying Tower 1&2
  main> of WTC and the taking of over 5000 lives?

Off the top of my head? I don't know. But that's certainly the
question people should be discussing, and yet I haven't discussed at
all. More importantly, the Congress's authorization of force includes
*neither of these considerations*, nor did the debate that produced
the authorization contain any of it, as near as I can tell.

Let's look at some of the relevant considerations:

First, let's assume it wasn't bin Laden, but, rather, was a Taliban
operation -- in fact, let's assume it was a retaliation for our
"Operation Infinite Reach" in which we shot off I don't recall how
many cruise missiles and killed between 6 and 10 Afghani peasants and
destroyed a mosque, a school, etc.

Ok, so we did that, clearly a violation of international law.

Let's assume Taliban retaliated by blowing up WTC and P'gon.

There are two kinds of harm the attacks on the US did: tangible and
intangible. Since the latter is hard to discuss, let's stick to the
former. I can think of two kinds of tangible harm: the loss of life,
which looks like it will be somewhere closer to six than to five
thousand. Second, property damage; this is hard to estimate, but let's
just guess it's $50B. Probably not too far off.

So Taliban did 6,000 lives and $50B of harm to us. I think we have to
set aside the property damage since I doubt very much that there is
$50B of property in all of Kabul.

If the Security Council approves a strike *at all* (since it might
not) I can't imagine it approving a strike that was likely to kill
*too many* more Afghanis than 6,000. In other words, NO NUKES. No
carpet bombing.

In other words, it's complicated, since the principle of
proportionality is in this case balanced by the principle of
necessity; that is, the question 'what may we do' is balanced by a
prior question, 'what do we *have* to do?'

I think whatever the SC would approve, it's hard to square any of this
with the blood-letting Bush has been hinting.

Now, let's assume that it wasn't an Afghanistan operation but a
private matter, that is, an operation conceived and authorized by bin
Laden, carried out by a cell of his Al-Qaeda network.

In this case, determining what is proportional and necessary is even
*more* complicated, since those really are principles governing the
use of international force *between States* and bin Laden/Al-Qaeda is
not a State.

It surely doesn't have $50B in assets, and I would be very surprised
if it had 5,000 members. 

This is why it makes more sense, and is more congruent with law, to
treat this not as war but as international *crime*. Bin Laden must
surely forfeit *all* his assets. And while I am opposed to the death
penalty as a matter of principle, a conviction followed by an
execution of all members of Al-Qaeda who conspired to commit these
crimes is hard to object to on grounds either of necessity or
proportionality.

Further, for countries that have neglected their obligation under UN
resolution and Charter and international law by harboring bin Laden --
where harboring means something like "provided safe physical haven,
supplied with men and materiel, provided legal and diplomatic cover,
sheltered financially" -- *some* measure of response is
appropriate. Is bombing appropriate? No. If we destroy Al-Qaeda there
is no necessity to punish harboring countries militarily. 

I'm not sure what to do to these countries, especially the ones that
are not democratic, that punishes the people responsible but not
innocents.

Note: these are just some of the considerations the Bush people should
be running through and debating publicly, which isn't happening. I do
not particularly favor this pattern of response. I suppose in
realpolitik terms, however, while it's impossible, it's the best I
could hope for.

  >> nor responding within the framework of international law.
  >> *** Unfortunately "international law" has proven to be fairly
  >>     lawless. 

That's not at all true and is in fact a dumb thing to say. The primary
impediment to the regime of international law is, in fact, the United
States utter scorn for it, going back to the beginning of the
de-colonization period (roughly mid-1950s/60s to 1989). When, in the
immediate post-WWII period the US invented the UN, and could control
it, the US supported the UN. Once the old colonial empires started to
break up, and new countries were birthed into the UN, the US lost
control over the UN, and so has since then utterly rejected it.

     No
  >> absolute proof - ie picture of bin laden with his hand on plunger
  >> attached to WTC and nothing is done except scolding and political
  >> rhetoric. 

Wrong. UN troops have been and are stationed all over the world
keeping the peace.

What I suspect you mean is that the UN rarely authorizes vengeance
operations of the sort Americans crave -- in some measure because our
politicians have fanned the flames.

     In this case, that is unacceptable to me and you will
  >> find, most Americans.  Countries around the world who harbor and
  >> in some cases encourage the "bin ladens" of the world must be
  >> shown this is unacceptable.

Yes, including, presumably, the US, right? We harbor anti-Cuban and
anti-Castro terrorists in plain sight. Justice begins at home, right?

  >> My suggestion wasn't that we take our time in responding
  >> militarily but that Congress not acquiesce to Bush's demand that
  >> they engage in Speed Legislation, which they did
  >> unfortunately. Laws are funny things, sorta like brain surgeries:
  >> you rarely get good ones by trying to make them as *fast as
  >> humanly possible*.

  >> *** I agree , however, leaving the patient on the table an overly
  >>     period
  >> of time, to have *feel good* discussion will result in reduced
  >> capacity or death. Todays congress is very good at - reduced
  >> capacity and in this case death cast its shadow long and wide.

Sorry, this makes little sense on its face. Care to translate from
your metaphor back into ordinary terms?

I daresay no one is having 'feel good' discussions and I know of no
one who *feels good* about any of this shit.

  >> Further, it's becoming clear that Bush is playing directly into
  >> bin Laden's hands -- assuming bin Laden is behind all of this,
  >> which at this point seems pretty likely -- by escalating what
  >> was, despite his illogical and ill-founded protestations of war,
  >> essentially a criminal (however monstrous) act into some kind of
  >> global "crusade", as he so stupidly put it this week, by which he
  >> means to "rid the world of evil".

  main> ***poor choice of words "crusade","war on terrorism" is
  main> actually quite clever in its "dumbed down" sort of way. 

Two things: first, international politics and diplomacy *hinge*, often
quite literally, on words and our choice of them. It is hard for me to
imagine a more *inapt* choice of leader in a time like this than
Bush. Even his diehard inner-circle of loyalists *cringed* when he
said 'crusade', and the White House quickly apologized and
backtracked.

Second, 'war on terrorism' is not clever at all. It's dangerous, for
reasons I discussed above. This was not a war, it was a crime.

Let's take an example that should be clearer for you; let's imagine an
American, say an American Jew, goes to Israel and sets up a settler's
life, colonizing some new cantonized area of Palestine, as has been
happening for years. This American Jew, now living in Israel, finally
goes a bit nuts, perhaps fueled by a hateful distorted version of
Judaism, and he decides to take matters into his own hands. He goes
into Gaza, releases some sort of bio-agent into the water supply, and
5,000 Palestinians die, over the course of a week, slow, agonizing,
horrible deaths.

Okay, so would you support the Arab world declaring war on Israel?
Would you support them invading and bombing Israel? Further, would you
support them declaring war on the US, since the US harbored him and
supports Israel?

No, you'd quite rightly want it treated as what it was: an act of
crime, surely even a crime against humanity, as were the terrorist
acts.

But people cannot declare actual war on States and vice versa. It's
simply a category mistake, and in our real world, it's becoming a
very, very dangerous one.

        After
  main> all President Bush does have to sell this and prepare the
  main> American public. Despite what you believe, there are times
  main> when logic and discourse will not work. 

Heh. That's cute. They won't work to convince people to do the wrong
thing -- of that I am quite certain.

        I suggest you have a
  main> reasoned conversation with the Taliban and their belief
  main> system. 

Hmm, I studied Islam for a very long time as part of getting a BA,
Masters, and PhD in religious studies. But thanks for the suggestion!

More relevantly, why do you take anything I've said as supporting the
Taliban? I do not support the Taliban. Alas, my government *has*. Too
bad.

        I think you will find the woman and common person in
  main> Afghanistan would give their life for some sort of
  main> freedom. 

Of course. But how does that entail the morality of us *taking their
lives* indiscriminately?

        this desire for freedom is not unique to
  main> America. Terrorism comes in many forms, from the WTC, to
  main> oppression of daily life. 

Yes, it also takes forms that are, given the intellectual culture of
the US, *unspeakable*: the U.S. sanctions against Iraq, our attack by
cruise missile of Afghanistan, Clinton destroying the *only* medicine
factory in the Sudan, **without consulting the Joint Chiefs**, Israel
assasinating Palestinian opposition leaders by Apache gunship and
missile, and the list goes on and on.

Does our 'war on terrorism' target all of those too?

  main> ***There IS a time to declare war. War is ugly. Living in fear
  main> is not an acceptable alternative.  Extremism in the defense of
  main> liberty is no vice and moderation in pursuit of justice is no
  main> virtue.

Sorry, I don't have a comment on your religion.

Best,
Kendall Clark
-- 
If rich White people are oppressed, no one is.