no alternative to war, dammit!

Here is the link to an article in Salon claiming that because bin 
Laden's war is "against modernity" rather than in support of those 
oppressed by US policies, alteration of those policies is pointless 
and war is the only alternative

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/25/modernity/print.html

Below is the letter to editor of Salon that I just submitted:


****
David Reiff's argument, while thoughtful, makes the mistake of 
assuming that calls for re-consideration of US policies necessarily 
preclude military response.  Reiff also makes the mistake of 
cosidering attempts to place the attacks on the US in the context of 
US global military and economic intervention, to be "blaming the US."

The 9-11 attacks were but the first on US soil in a decades long war 
between the US and its client states, and various opponents, 
including some Muslim states and peoples.  To recognize this is not 
to "blame the victim" but to acknowledge one of Reiff's key points: 
that a new era has dawned, albeit in a larger, pre-existing conflict.

Among the opponents the US has faced in the past decade has been 
Osama bin Laden, himself but one of several thuggish and fascistic 
leaders purporting to be Muslim.  It is likely true, as Reiff claims, 
that bin Laden's war is against the decadent modernity of the West. 
Nevertheless, as we have known since *at least* President Bush's 
third speech, bin Laden is but one of many terrorists, and al-Qaeda 
but one of many networks.

Other terrorists may indeed be fighting (at least in their own minds) 
for "the oppressed."  Alterations of US foreign policy might well 
decrease the motivation of these other terrorists.  Such alterations 
might also repair relations with non-fundamentalist Muslim regimes 
and (at least as important) might repair relations with millions of 
Muslim people, worldwide.  Alterations of foreign policy in other 
areas of the world might have similar effect.

Thus the root error in Reiff's analysis is to declare that war and 
re-considerations of US policy are mutually exclusive remedies.  They 
are not.  In fact, the wider the "terrorism" net is cast, the more 
interdependent the two remedies become.

More importantly, there are millions of Muslims who, while not "at 
war with modernity" nevertheless may sympathize with bin Laden 
because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Changing the US 
policies that have victimized them, and nurtured their resentments, 
may be the only way the US has to blunt the perception in the Muslim 
world that the inevitable military strikes against bin Laden are but 
another in a long series of strikes against Muslims, Islam, and their 
long-ravaged lands.
--