Pepe Escobar in The Asia Times

[arisbe]

"Three years after September 11, President George W Bush's crusade is a failure. "War on terror" is a meaningless myth: you can't combat a supple attack machine like al-Qaeda with shock and awe. What should have been a long, meticulous police operation was turned by Bush - instigated by his foreign policy adviser, God - into an illegal, preemptive attack on a nation that had nothing to do with terror.

"This policy has actually increased terror attacks around the world."

Comments

[a1an.livejournal.com]

i dont believe all this liberal stuff & views you keep posting...just so you know...but i'm not about to debate about the issues :)

increased terror attacks? they blame that on Bush? why dont they blame that on the terrorists? anyway, see ya

[marxist-thug.livejournal.com]

Because Bush successfully created conditions that would step up the frequency of terrorist attacks, as well as the recruitment of more fun little jihadists.

[a1an.livejournal.com]

oh, ok, thanks

[arisbe.livejournal.com]

If you want to use "liberal" as a general term of abuse for those who disagree with Mr. Bush and the principles that inspire them, you will have to condemn the whole Conservative American tradition under it. This is not so bad, as Hayek preferred the term "liberal," but found it had been hijacked by Socialists. Now we find "conservative" similarly hijacked by National Socialists of the sort who hailed Roosevelt as the American Mussolini, and now call themselves Republicans.

[winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com]

I said this in 2001, Islamists want a Crusade to topple the secular governments of the Middle East. Remember that Bin Laden's ultimate goal is not the destruction of the US, but a hegemonic Islamic power rivaling the old Ottoman Empire.

[marginaleye.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure why a "neo-Caliphate" would be such a dreadful thing. The version of Islam practiced by the Ottoman Turks, for instance, wasn't nearly as oppressive as that practiced in Saudi Arabia today (indeed, wasn't Wahhabism a Puritanical reaction of Ottoman permissiveness?).

And, look at the other side of the coin: Why should the fate of the Saudi royal family (a corrupt and abusive pack of nepotistic monarchists) be worth a bucket of lukewarm spit to the United States? From the perspective of democratic ideals, wouldn't a popular theocracy be "better" than an unpopular monarchy?

But, of course, the United States is a plutocratic country, not a democracy (or even a republic), and corrupt absolute monarchs are very convenient for big business, whereas theocracies tend to actually believe in things other than the all-dissolving lubricating power of cash.

[winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com]

I actually don't know that I disaprove of a Neo-Caliphate regime except that it will be influenced by a Wahhabi-Sunni outlook more than a Moderate Sunni one. However, it would probably mellow over time.

It would, however, probably spell an end to Israel, for good or ill.

[marginaleye.livejournal.com]

How many Jewish Americans are there?

How many Arab Americans are there?

What are the relative birth-rates of these two groups?

I wonder how closely American politicans are eyeing these numbers.

I think Israel could survive a neo-Caliphate, but it would have to either do hideous things, or make serious territorial concessions and probably pay reparations of some sort, to somebody.

[winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com]

I have been asking what real use does Israel have unless one has a Jewish or relatively Fundamentalist Christian perspective. I know the Neo-Con defense is that it necessary as a stragetic ally; however, that doesn't make sense due to the fact that most of our problems in the region actually stem from our support of Israel not matter how fascist they act.

[joffridus.livejournal.com]

Well stated.

[ex-prima237.livejournal.com]

I'd gently point out that the Clinton admin did everything the "right"
way and attacks escalated. I'm willing to let the third world take some
lumps and see what happens when they get mad. As Mao said; "Power flows
from the barrel of a gun..."

[peacheater77.livejournal.com]

I agree with the statement, Frank.

Indeed, I think that the Islamic fundamentalists have been wanting exactly the reaction that they got from Bush.

Another observation that I have to make is that we are fighting an enemy that is not as clearly delineated as the other folks that we have fought in previous wars (including ourselves in the Civil War).

[winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com]

I have thought we were playing into their hands since Pre-9/11 policies.

[a1an.livejournal.com]

what do you propose that we as a nation did in response to 9/11...

muslims, or arabs, only respond to force...and i still dont know how increased attacks by muslim terrorists are bush's fault...did he make them do the attacks? that is as senseless and as twisted as typical middle eastern arab logic...

[marginaleye.livejournal.com]

muslims, or arabs, only respond to force...

<sarcasm>
They're animals, I tell you, just like dogs. Lazy, shiftless, back-biting brutes, but once you give 'em a taste of the whip, and show 'em who's boss, they knuckle under quick enough...
</sarcasm>

[winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com]

I know, it's more that a little slilted. But then again, they think the same thing of us.

[marginaleye.livejournal.com]

I know, it's more that a little slilted.

Pardon?

[winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com]

stilted, sorry.

[winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com]

Conflated arguments. No, he didn't make them attack.. listen to what I said. Bin Laden wanted an attack because it will sent his relatively obscure Neo-Calipate group recruits.

You please spare you hyperbolic response and actually read what was said.

Plus, it wasn't Mr. Bush's fault; it started with Mr. Reagan giving those Muslim extremists arms and it was actually made the worse by Mr. Clinton's foreign policy choices.

By 9-11, everything was set in motion.