Posted on 10/24/2001 1:42:58 AM PDT by CommiesOut
| Coalition loses battle for people's minds The US and its allies have engaged in a battle they almost certainly cannot win _ not morally or ideologically. Bangkok Post - Thailand; Oct 24, 2001 BY WALDEN BELLO
After three weeks of bombardment of Afghanistan, once one gets beyond the sound and fury of American bombs and the smokescreen of CNN propaganda, it appears that Osama bin Laden is coming out ahead in his war with the United States. It is doubtful if Washington has achieved anything of tactical or strategic value except to make the ``rubble bounce'', as the consequences of multiple nuclear explosions in one area were cynically described during the Cold War. Indeed, the bombing, which has taken the lives of many civilians, has worsened America's strategic position in Southwest and South Asia by eroding the stability of the pro-US regimes in the Muslim world. A radical fundamentalist regime is now a real possibility in Islamabad, and Washington faces the unpleasant prospect of having to serve ultimately as a police force between an increasingly isolated Saudi elite and a restive youthful population that regards bin Laden as a hero. Meanwhile, in the rest of the developing world, the shock over the Sept 11 assault is giving way to disapproval of the US bombing and, even more worrisome to Washington, to bin Laden's emergence in the public consciousness as a feisty underdog skilfully running circles around a big bully. A telling sign of the times in Bangkok and many other cities in Southeast Asia is the way young people are snapping up bin Laden T-shirts, and not only for reasons of novelty. CNN images of US President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US Secretary of State Colin Powell ticking off the latest statement of support for the US mask the reality that Washington and London are losing the propaganda war. As Tom Spencer, a policy analyst with Britain's Conservative party, has observed, bin Laden has been turned into a Robin Hood. Mr Blair's public relations drive to make Britain an equal partner in the war effort has been so jarring that the foreign minister of Belgium, which currently holds the presidency of the European Union, has felt compelled to criticise him for compromising the interests of the EU. In the aftermath of the Sept 11 assault, a number of writers wrote about the possibility that the move could have been a bait to get the US bogged down in a war of intervention in the Middle East that would inflame the Muslim world against it. Whether or not that was indeed bin Laden's objective, the US bombing of Afghanistan has created precisely such a situation. Moderate leaders of Thailand's normally sedate Muslim community now openly express support for bin Laden. In Indonesia, once regarded as a model of tolerant Islam, a recent survey revealed that half of the respondents regard bin Laden as a fighter for justice and less than 35% regard him as a terrorist. The global support that Mr Bush has flaunted is deceptive. Of course, a lot of governments have expressed their support for the UN Security Council's call for a global campaign against terrorism. Far fewer countries, however, are actively co-operating in intelligence and police surveillance activities. Even fewer have endorsed the military campaign and opened up their territory to transit by US planes on the way to Southwest Asia. And when one gets down to the decisive test of offering troops and weapons to fight alongside the British and the Americans in the harsh plains and icy mountains of Afghanistan, one is down to the hardcore of the Western Cold War alliance. Bin Laden's terrorist methods are despicable, but one must grant the devil his due. Whether through study or practice, he has absorbed the lessons of guerrilla warfare in a national, Afghan setting and translated them to a global setting. Serving as the international alternative to the national popular base are the youth of the global Muslim community, among whom feelings of resentment against Western domination were a volatile mix that was simply waiting to be ignited. The Sept 11 attacks were horrific and heinous, but from one angle, they were just a variant of Che Guevara's foco theory. According to Guevara, the aim of a bold guerrilla action is twofold: to demoralise the enemy and to empower your popular base by getting them to participate in an action that shows that the all-powerful government is indeed vulnerable. The enemy is then provoked into a military response that further saps his credibility in what is basically a political and ideological battle. For bin Laden, terrorism is not the end but a means to an end. And that end is something that none of Mr Bush's rhetoric about defending civilisation through revenge bombing can compete with: a vision of Muslim Asia rid of the American economic and military power, Israel, and corrupt surrogate elites, and a return to justice and Islamic sanctity. Yet Washington was not exactly without weapons in this ideological war. In the aftermath of Sept 11, it could have responded in a way that could have blunted bin Laden's political and ideological appeal and opened up a new era in US-Arab relations. First, it could have foresworn unilateral military action and announced to the world that it would go the legal route in pursuing justice, no matter how long this took. It could have announced its pursuit of a process combining patient multinational investigation, diplomacy, and the employment of accepted international mechanisms like the International Court of Justice. These methods may take time but they work, and they ensure that justice and fairness are served. For instance, patient diplomacy secured the extradition from Libya of suspects in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jumbo jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, and their successful prosecution under an especially constituted court in the Hague. Likewise, the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, set up under the auspices of the International Court of Justice, has successfully prosecuted some wartime Croat and Serbian terrorists and is currently prosecuting former Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic. The second prong of a progressive US response could have been Washington announcing a fundamental change in its policies in the Middle East, the main points of which would be the withdrawal of troops from Saudi Arabia, the ending of sanctions and military action against Iraq, decisive support for the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, and ordering Israel to immediately refrain from attacks on Palestinian communities. Foreign policy realists will argue that this would be impossible to sell to the American people, but they have been wrong before. Had the US taken this route, instead of taking the law into its own hands, it could have emerged as an example of a great power showing restraint and paved the way to a new era of relations among people and nations. The instincts of a unilateral, imperial past, however, have prevailed, and these have now run riot to such an extent that even on the home front the rights of dissent and democratic diversity that have been one of the powerful ideological attractions of US society are threatened by the draconian legislation being pushed by law-and-order types like Secretary of Justice John Ashcroft. As it is now stands, Washington has painted itself into a no-win situation. If it kills bin Laden, he becomes a martyr, a source of never-ending inspiration, especially to young Muslims. If it captures him alive, freeing him will become a massive focus of resistance that will prevent the imposition of capital punishment without triggering massive revolts throughout the Islamic world. If it fails to kill or capture him, he will secure an aura of invincibility, as somebody favoured by God, and whose cause is therefore just. Sept 11 was an unspeakable crime against humanity, but the US response has converted the equation in many people's minds into a war between vision and power, righteousness and might, and _ as perverse as this may sound _ spirit versus matter. Washington has stumbled into bin Laden's preferred terrain of battle. - Walden Bello is a professor ofsociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines and executive director of Focus on the Global South, a research, analysis, and advocacy programme with the Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute.
Copyright © Asia Intelligence Wire |
Good grief. If the Administration followed this route, I would love to hear their daily responses to the people keeling over from anthrax.
"We must be patient, and let the justice system work!"
We'd be starting our second impeachment proceeding in 3 years, and this time, it would end in conviction.
The same malady infects radical socialists in the US. They have so little public support, they can only find soul-mates in the ranks of the enemy.
This piece of sh!t needs to be dealt with at least as much as Osama.
The PC war will be a catastrophic failure.
Nuke the mother-f@ckers, and let the pieces fall where they may.
This guy needs to take a deep breath and shut up. WWI took more than 3 years of bombing, WWII took over 4 years of bombing before we won.
Actually, these t-shirts are great advertisements: "Please feel free to shoot me through the head, because I believe murdering innocent men, women and children in cold blood is cool."
I don't see the relevance of your sarcasm. I was thinking of the Japanese and the Asian Tigers. These people have found they are able to compete both individually and collectively in world markets and so react very differently to us than those who have doubts about their ability to do so.
If at all possible we must wean ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil. It forces us to intervene militarily in an area of the world where we have few other interests and it gives Arabs money and power without the discipline necessary for true competition and achievement.
What any of this has to do with McDonald's or MTV is beyond me. Our real cultural treasures should be apparent to even a moron like you. After all, you're using a computer and exercising free speech.
The moniker "moron" belongs to those who think rude sarcasm is an appropriate reply to serious argument.
" To be willfully ignorant of the direct and indirect influence that successive US administrations have had in that area and the result of such interference makes a joke of what you refer to as American culture- free speech and internet. What good are they if you don't know anything and just parrot the official line?"
"Willfull ingnorance" is not the same thing as "Disagreement". I don't agree with your arguments about the nature and effect of "such interference". Of course, your arguments are your own and not "the official party line". If that were really true there would not be thread after thread discussing this issue - using the identical arguments.
True opening your mind...after a few much needed lessons in manners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.