|
[On the Portside discussion list, there has been
an interesting debate sparked by Carl Davidson's criticism of a statement by the
Cornell Forum for Justice and Peace. I have done a little formatting to
make make it little clearer when Davidson is stating his views and when he is
quoting someone else. His comments on the Cornell statement are rendered
in bold as well as parenthesis. Similarly, in ds, I have formated
his reply to David McReynolds as a dialogue.]
Cornell Forum for Justice and Peace Statement
Why is this being posted now, except to show that those who drafted it were
dead wrong on about half of their assessments?
Carl Davidson, Chicago
My comments are in parenthesis below:
The Cornell Forum for Justice and Peace Official Group Statement: November
25, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cornell Forum for Justice and Peace, a group of faculty and graduate
students, offers the following statement, dated November 25, 2001, in
response to the events of September 11 and since. For
further information on the CFJP, please see our website.
We oppose war as a response to the events of September 11.
1. We oppose the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan. It violates basic
human rights, and has brought about and will continue to bring about
grievous consequences in Afghanistan, the United States, and throughout
the world.
(No, the Taliban and al-Qaeda violated basic human rights. The US helped
to overthrow them an pull together a more representative regime where human
Rights might have a chance)
1.1 We assert our support for the prosecution of individuals responsible
for the September 11 attacks
(Individuals are not the main point. The organization must be destroyed)
but we insist on due process and transparency of procedure (procedures
can’t be completely transparent without giving up your sources to the enemy
who is still active) under international law and through an
international body such as the International Criminal Court, or
a special tribunal set up by the U.N. (There is precedent for this
in the ongoing trial of Slobodan Milosevic.) If international law as it
stands is unable to deal with international terrorism, then effective
measures against such violence must begin with appropriate
legislation and the building of the necessary
international institutions. The principles of justice and due
legal procedure do not stand abrogated because of the international
nature of this case.
1.2 If we agree that those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks belong to
an international terrorist network, then we cannot ignore the fact that the
sine qua non of such networks is their decentralization. Such
networks are global in character and membership and do not act under
the authority of any one state.
(This ignores the symbiotic relationship between al- Qaeda and the
Taliban. The network is decentralized, but many resources, training
facilities, funds, leadership Were centralized in Afghanistan)
Moreover, prior to September11, only three states recognized the Taliban as
the lawful government of Afghanistan; since that date, two of the three
have withdrawn their recognition.
We therefore conclude that the United States bombing of Afghanistan is
based on a false premise: that the Afghani state and people are reducible
to the Taliban.
(You can turn this around to be their false premise: the bombing of the
Taliban And al-Qaeda is reducible to bombing the entire people of
Afghanistan)
The death of innocent Afghanis, many of them women and children, who have
nothing to do with Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda and who may in fact be
themselves critical of the Taliban regime, is thus ethically unacceptable.
(This turns on intention and measure taken to restrict harm to
noncombatants, Which the authors have just ignored above)
Given these facts, the unremitting bombing of Afghanistan by the U.S., the
deaths of civilians through its admitted use of cluster bombs, and the
simultaneous use of inadequate and dangerous food drops as
a propaganda weapon will only serve to increase anger against the
United States,
(Can this be shown in Afghanistan? Seems people are relatively friendly
To the US and quite hostile to bin- Laden’s people)
not only among Muslims, but throughout the world. No degree of media
censorship and number of public relations exercises can mask these facts.
(Doesn’t seem to be turning out that way, especially given the latest
video Footage of Osama’s bragging to his buddies)
1.3 Citizens of Afghanistan have, without a doubt, suffered tremendously
under the Taliban regime. They have in fact been suffering ever since the
proxy war between the U.S. and Soviet Union was launched on
their soil, and through the many years of civil war since. Women in
particular have suffered under the Taliban, and yet it is ostensibly in
their interest, largely, that
this war has been justified.
The suffering of women,children, and men in Afghanistan at the hands of the
Taliban under no circumstances justifies the sort of vigilante military
campaign that the U.S. is currently pursuing.
(Vigilates? Give me a break. Plus the suffering of women seems to have
eased a bit By most accounts)
Civilian deaths are increasing as a direct result of bombing, but owing to
the U.S. demand that Pakistan close its borders with Afghanistan, the
keeping back of aid convoys, and the approach of winter, the number
of people at risk of death by starvation has increased from 3 million
to 7.5 million. Prior to the war on terrorism international relief agencies
were capable of keeping the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan at
a level of stasis. Particularly since the U.S. military action, under
orders from the U.S. government, these agencies and their aid convoys have
been kept back from the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan.
(These aid convoys are flowing now; it was the Taliban that sabotaged
the UN Programs, not only recently, but for years)
As the inevitable civilian casualties mount, the United States squanders
the good will and sympathy that the world extended in the wake of 9/11,
which is so vital to the international diplomatic cooperation needed to
fight terrorism.
2. We find the curtailment of civil rights and the checks on government
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the name of national security
unacceptable. We note that the U.S. has launched a military campaign in the
name of freedom and democracy while undermining these at
home. Patriotism, redefined as the unquestioning acceptance and
support of the government's every action, is
assuming the status of a loyalty test.
2.1 We denounce the "USA PATRIOT Act of 2001" H.R. 3162 and all
similar attempts to limit our democratic freedoms. A democracy rests on
checks and balances, such as the Bill of Rights, which are built into the
system. These ensure that the state will not overstep its bounds and
become authoritarian or totalitarian. The right to information regarding
the government's actions is crucial in a democratic state. The right to
express dissent from the official or majority position is the sine qua
non of a democratic polity and not a mark of treason or sedition.
We are extremely concerned by the far-reaching nature of the most recent
anti-terrorist bill (H.R. 3162), and George W. Bush's decree of November 13
instituting secret military tribunals. Provisions that widen the power
of intelligence agencies, institute detention without charge or trial, and
increase surveillance of ordinary citizens smack of totalitarianism and we
oppose them in the name of democracy.
(I agree on defending liberties, but isn’t it also true that the
government Has to make a determined, escalated effort to uncover and stop
terrorist Cells in the U.S. Should we stop the increased searches
and security at airports?)
3. We view with deep concern the current state of domestic affairs. Two
matters need immediate and
sustained attention:
3.1 We deplore the use of racial profiling, a highly discriminatory and
racist practice. It contravenes all standards of ethical practice, and is
clearly a violation of the Bill of Rights.
3.2 There has to date been no coordinated, large-scale attempt to provide
financial aid to the families of the workers who died in the World Trade
Center.
(This is bizarre. Substantial checks are already being mailed)
Instead, while corporations such as Boeing and the major airlines have laid
off thousands of employees, the airline industry and insurance companies
have been given comprehensive financial aid by the federal
government, and the corporate sector in general has been given
major tax breaks. It is reprehensible that American workers should be
the ones to suffer in the name of an economic crisis when corporations are
being awarded vast sums of
money as bailouts and tax breaks.
(In most cases, yes. But workers lose their jobs when airlines go
bankrupt, too)
We propose the following firm and decisive actions to stop the spread of
terror:
4. The perpetrators of the September 11th attacks must be brought to
justice through appropriate international diplomatic and legal channels.
(Who is supposed to arrest them and with what armed force? Remember,
these Guys are still out there trying to do more harm. It’s not like you
can sit around and wait for some body that doesn’t yet exist to come
into being)
4.1 If the U.S. has compelling evidence to support the charges against
Osama bin Laden, it should present such to an international body such as
the United Nations or the World Court, or ask for a special tribunal to be
set up for this purpose and present its case there. A request for
extradition and trial should follow the precedents established by Spain's
filing regarding Augusto Pinochet, the prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic, and
indeed the Nuremberg trials.
(Again, are we supposed to wait passively and suffer more attacks while this
Machinery is being oiled up? The subtext is that there is no present
danger)
The United States is not a global vigilante, but rather a member of the
world community; as such it has an obligation to be principled in its
actions.
4.2 We support the creation of a standing International Criminal Court in
which criminals such as those allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks
would be tried.
Towards this end, the U.S. must immediately ratify the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court. The existence of such a standing court is the
only legal and principled solution to the imperative of bringing
to justice international criminals such as those responsible for the
9/11 attacks.
(My quarrel here is with the word "only.")
The adoption by this body of a universally agreed-upon definition of
terrorism must be a first step, so as to preclude its ad hoc and
opportunistic deployment by particular states against opposition party
members, movements for national self-determination, and
other legitimate dissenters.
4.3 Meanwhile, the U.S. must make every attempt to adhere to the rules and
covenants of international law and the treaties to which it is party. We
urge that the U.S. follow the recommendations of such
non-partisan groups as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
4.4 Effective counters to terrorism require patience, long-term planning,
and institution-building. Any such program has to be, by definition,
international, and will require the support and cooperation of a
majority of states in the world community. Broad-based legitimacy,
achieved through consensual, open, and transparent processes of diplomacy,
is crucial to halting terrorism.
5. In light of current events, the U.S. government and citizenry must
re-examine the nation's foreign policy, particularly its history in the
last half-century of intervention in the affairs of sovereign
states everywhere in the world.
5.1 The Palestinians have suffered great injustice over many years. The
United States and the international community must recognize their right to
form a state, entirely sovereign, not interrupted by hundreds of
armed fortress settlements, and with all the external help necessary
to realize the potential for a thriving economy.
5.2 In return, Palestinians must accept and diplomatically recognize the
state of Israel, and both states must accept United Nations peacekeeping
troops both on the border, and in an internationalized Jerusalem,
indefinitely. Justice demands an end to imperialism, colonialism, and
oppression, and a just peace would do much to rehabilitate the reputation
of the UnitedState in the Middle East.
6. Regarding Afghanistan, the best course of action is that proposed by
groups such as the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA):
the demilitarization of Afghan society by the actual disarming of all
warring factions, and the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force for some
years until a semblance of normalcy returns to the life of ordinary
people.
(And just who is going to disarm all the warring factions? RAWA?
As for the UN force, it’s already on the way)
6.1 The U.S. must not under any circumstances repeat its mistake, in
Afghanistan or elsewhere, of playing the role of king-maker. Orchestrating
a coup by throwing its weight behind any particular faction, be it the
Northern Alliance or any other which does not have the support of the
Afghan people, is a prescription for continued violence and injustice.
(This is what is already going on, or it begs the question)
6.2 All Afghan refugees relegated for years to camps across Pakistan and
Iran can be rehabilitated in Afghanistan. Humanitarian organizations and
relief agencies can continue their commendable work, and
other non-governmental organizations can be encouraged to provide free
education to all children, as well as vocational training and further
schooling for all young adults.
6.3 It is imperative that the Afghani people be allowed to rebuild their
shattered economy and society; only then can they begin the crucial work of
nation-building that includes choosing their own
representative government, perhaps under the protection of a
U.N. peacekeeping force. There is no alternative to this
in Afghanistan or elsewhere; as a democratic country we cannot deprive
other peoples of the right to govern themselves as they choose.
7. Regarding the United States domestic
situation and policies, we urge a rapid, equitable, and
effective response to racism and to the suspension of civil liberties.
(Civil liberties have been threatened, but not suspended)
7.1 The U.S. must immediately stop the use of racial profiling by its
various agencies, and by private actors (e.g. airlines, either of their own
accord or at the behest of other passengers, off-loading or
denying boarding privileges to passengers because they
look "Arab" or "Muslim"). There have already been
far too many incidents of hate crimes and harassment directed against
U.S. citizens of Arab or South Asian descent, as well as against persons
mistaken for such. A democratic state has an obligation to protect all
its citizens equally, as well as prevent and punish unlawful behavior.
Prosecution and deterrence are already overdue in relation to 9/11-related
hate crimes.
7.2 The U.S. must immediately repeal the draconian piece of legislation
called the USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162). Periods of crisis and how they are
dealt with are precisely what distinguish democratic from
totalitarian states. ââ €œœNational Securityââ € cannot be used
as an excuse to deprive citizens of their fundamental rights.
8. The money diverted from a military campaign could be far more
effectively channeled into concrete action to protect U.S. citizens against
such threats.
8.1 The government should establish protocols for monitoring the release of
harmful agents in densely populated regions and in public buildings.
8.2 The government must provide equal access to adequate and effective
prophylactic, diagnostic, and healing procedures for citizens affected or
threatened by chemical or biological attacks, without respect
to power, privilege, or public visibility. The cavalier treatment of
postal workers, many of them people of color, has been a disgrace.
Medication must be distributed and administered through reliable
health-care professionals to ensure equality of coverage as well as reduce
the chances of over- medication. Government commitment to ensuring access
to medication should exceed its devotion to maintaining drug
corporation profits.
9. In conclusion: We would agree that our proposals for dealing with the
current situation are wide-ranging, and in some cases not at all continuous
with current and former United States foreign and domestic policy.
The point, precisely, is that behind the corpses and the grief
following on the attacks of September 11, there lies the possibility of the
United States making new and better relations with the world community. We
understand our moral and political responsibility as the
bringing about of those changes.
Three responses to Davidson re:
Cornell statement
In response to Carl Davidson's new found faith in the ability of the
US military to bring justice to the world and in the veracity of the US
media: Do you or do you not accept the figure, now reported all
over the world, including most recently, the Guardian in the UK, of
3700 civilian casualties in Afghanistan (a greater number than the steadily
falling figure of WTC casualties)? Is this figure an
"acceptable casualty rate" to you? Are daisycutters and
cluster bombs the weapons of choice for careful, surgical strikes?
Does not their use indicate a willingness to target civilians? Is not the
targeting of civilians precisely a war crime? I noticed in today's LA
Times that the US has refused to participate in the founding of an
International Criminal Court to deal with war crimes. I can't imagine why.
Warren Montag
===
Carl Davidson's response to the Cornell Forum statement was disappointing
to say the least. I for one am glad the statement was posted, because I
still oppose the war--and I know I'm not alone in that. As for Carl's
response: That the Taliban and al-Qaeda violated basic human rights has
nothing at all to do with the statement that the U.S. military campaign
is a violation of basic human rights with grievous consequences.
Responding to violence with violence guarantees more violence and
invariably involves violation of human rights. Given our record of pulling
together "representative regimes," I'm not hopeful that
this one will be as good as Carl seems to think it will be.
I fear it will be as bad as the "democratic" governments we have
created and propped up elsehwere in the past. Individuals are a point
(whether they are "the" point or not). Due process in
criminal prosecution of individuals would be a good start
in transforming a state of terror that exists for many who have had
and continue to have no recourse to due process domestically or
internationally. Which organization is it that needs to be destroyed, by
the way? (Might I suggest Global Capitalism?) Who defines "the
enemy" and the degree of opacity we will allow to keep him/her
(whoever s/he may be) from knowing what's going on? A symbiotic
relationship between al- Qaeda and the Taliban does not justify a
massive bombing campaign in which civilians will inevitably be harmed
with or without the good intentions of those dropping the bombs. We helped
create the climate in which the Taliban came to power, and we cannot
absolve ourselves of the responsibility that entails by bombing the Taliban
into submission.
Drawing on such a symbiotic relationship in military targetting decisions
was probably part of the logic involved in making the WTC and the Pentagon
targets on 11 September. Military targets can become broad indeed if
we proceed with that kind of logic, and I fear that this may allow U.S.
military action to migrate to other states our government takes to
be symbiotically involved with terrorist organizations. The popularity
of a military campaign doesn't have much to do with its justice. Basing
one's moral stance on opinion polls (or anecdotal evidence) is shaky
at best, and it tends to undermine meaningful criticism if it is widely
practiced. Carl's dismissive response to the "vigilante" claim
seemsprompted by the absence of an argument. George W. Bush has used
"wild west" language from the beginning of this campaign, and it
can plausibly bear comparison to the process of rounding up a posse
to go after a "bad guy."
All the talk about wanting bin Laden "dead or alive" certainly
invites the comparison. If Carl disagrees with it, he should articulate the
disagreement rather than groaning "Give me a break." I'm quite
amazed that Carl has signed on to the "we have to
do something" line of reasoning that I've heard that repeatedly
from my right wing relatives. It assumes that the only options are military
force and passivity--which is simply not true. I see the Cornell
Forum's statement as a good faith attempt to articulate another option. I
wish I could say the same for Carl's response. The civil liberties
issue is most troubling to me. Philsophically and politically, we are
confronted with the question of what to do in the face of
"terror" as an increasingly "normal" state of
affairs--and we were confronted by that question long before 11 September
(unless we restrict "we" to that segment of the U.S.
population that was so comfortably numb before that date that it was
unaware of the terror imposed on much of the world's population with
regularity during the last century). Calls for limiting civil liberties
seem to be predicated on the belief that terror will be reduced by
building higher fences, topping them with sharper concertina wire, adding
locks to the gates, posting armed guards--and giving the State
greater power to establish and patrol perimeters. I don't think so.
And, again, I commend the Cornell Forum for participating in a discussion
that may help us consider other possibilities. --
Steven Schroeder
School of Liberal Studies
Roosevelt University
===
I'm struck, first, by the failure of both Carl and his critics regarding
this discussion. His critics (with whom I largely agree) ask who Carl
Davidson is and why he is carried on Portside. Carl is a member (or
has been) of CCSD, a long time radical, an activist during the Vietnam War.
If I wanted to read only things I agreed with, I'd get the Daily News.
I count on Portside for some "provocation" Yet Carl himself,
in reading a long and I thought carefully crafted statement from the
Cornell Forum, asks why it is being posted. It seems that the free and at
times angry exchange of ideas is still novel to some people.
On Carl's comments, he begins with correctly stating that the Taliban
violated basic human rights. But then goes on to say "The US helped to
overthrow them to pull together a more representative regime
where human Rights might have a chance". Sorry Carl. The
US attack on Afghanistan had nothing to do with human rights.
If so we might more logically have attacked Saudi Arabia (since most of
those on the jets that hit the World Trade Center were Saudis, and NONE
were Afghan), and human rights are just as much in peril. And I don't
know anyone (except Carl) who really thinks the US will help - or even
could help - construct a more rational regime in Kabul. After all, it
helped to overthrow the one which Kabul had, in hopes it would provoke
Soviet intervention (as it did). To the US, the Afghans are nothing but
pawns. Bad as the Taliban were, they did not launch the attack on the
WTC. We have never even seen any proof that Osama Bin Laden pulled off the
attack. The Administration promised a White Paper but never delivered
it, not to Congress, and not to the press. I have no brief at all for Bin
Laden. I think the kind of Islamic fundamentalism he advocates is
close to clerical fascism. But that doesn't prove he carried out the
attack. Again, bad as the Taliban were, it was not unreasonable for them to
ask for the proof before turning over a guest in their country. Had
Bush been looking for a nonmilitary solution there were two things he could
have done. The first would have been to provide the proof to the Taliban. But
second, instead of pressuring Pakistan to support our military
intervention, he could have simply asked Pakistan to use its major influence
within Afghanistan - they were the prime movers behind the Taliban,
and had an abundance of secret agents inside Afghanistan - to get the word
through that if Bin Laden wasn't surrendered that the open support
from Pakistan would be withdrawn. Those two steps were reasonable
first steps (assuming that we were persuaded Bin Laden was guiltly). The
regime here, however, wanted what it got - a chance to
attack militarily, to establish new bases, and to help round out the
meaning of the "New World Order". I'd note in passing the problem
- a universal one - of demonizing the enemy.
The US has run through a long line - Hitler, Stalin, the Ayatollah, Qaddafi,
Castro, Saddam, and now Bin Laden. In some cases we were dealing with
something close to certifiied evil - I think both Hitler and Stalin
fit that bill - but in other cases we "demonized on demand",
making it easier for us then to do what we do now in Iraq - destroy an
entire country. Carl points to the ongoing trial of Milosevic - that
is, unhappily, a tainted trial because there is not the slightest
indication that any political or military leader from the US
or Britain will be indicted for ordering the bombing of civilian
targets in Serbia. It is a case (as was Nuremburg) of "victor's"
justice. Still, as with Nuremburg, it can lay a useful precedent on which
we can build in seeking legal action against men such as Kissinger.
However the real need NOW is a transparent international tribunal NOT
organized and run by the US. Carl accuses the authors of the Cornell
statement of ignoring US precautions against bombing civilians.
Yet if one thing is clear, it is that some civilian targets were hit
deliberately - the Red Cross (hit twice) comes to mind at once. And, as
always happens in heavy bombing, even our own (and our allied Afghan)
troops are hit - which makes it rather pointless to ask whether civilians
were hit. Of course they were. I suggest Carl try watching the BBC or
subscribing to the weekly edition of the Guardian, or reading the online
articles carried here on Portside. There was one extremely chilling comment
I hear from Defense Secretary Rumsfield when asked at a press
conference about possible civilian deaths. He responded that we had to keep
in mind the 5,000 civilians killed in the WTC attack and then went
on to say "Let them come back to me when the civilian casualties
in Afghanistan reach 5,000. Or 50,000". It was that chilling
willingness on his part to kill ten to one. Remember the old Nazi rules of
killing hostages in France to slow the Resistance? Ten civilians for
every Nazi soldier. Linked to this has been the reluctance - even the
refusal - by the US military to let our reporters anywhere near the
scene of the fighting.
Carl asks if we can show the food drops have been inadequate. Oh God, Carl,
of course they have! Even the networks have reported, however briefly, that
the cluster bombs and the food packets were both the same color of
yellow and children often were killed by the bombs when they thought they
were gathering food packets. But the food packets themselves were a
joke - the key ingredient was smashed to jelly by the weight of the
drop. (And the peanut butter, which Afghans had never seen, looked like
shit and wasn't eaten).
Carl says that people "seem" to be relatively friendly to the US
and hostile to the Taliban. It depends. It is rare indeed to see a
population turn out to greet a conquering army with banners
saying "WE HATE YOU - GO HOME". When people have
been whipped and beaten they usually stand and are either sullen or
sometimes try to look happy. I think many Afghans were delighted the
Taliban were gone. But the New York Times has reported on the deep
bitterness of some of the Afghans over our bombing. And of course the
huge joke is that so many of the Taliban simply vanished back into the
population - standing by the roadside welcome the American troops. Carl
accuses the Taliban of blocking UN aid programs for years. I am not in
a position to argue that, one way or the other. But in Carl's joy over the
aid programs that are "flowing now" I catch an echo of the
Orwellian twist people put on the mass flight of civilians from Kosovo
after the US bombing began. Granted the Serbs sped that flight of
civilians, the "calendar" got confused in peoples' mind, as if
New Year's had come before Christmas. There were very few refugees out
of Kosovo until the massive US air attacks. Then there was a huge flow
out. Both the bombing and Serbian policy caused that flow, but the point
is, it didn'toccur until AFTER the US bombing began. But the Americans so
eager to support the NATO action kept refer to the need for the bombing
because of the refugees - ie., the effect was being confused with the
cause. In Afghanistan, a desperate situation was suddenly made hidiously
worse as literally hunreds of thousands of frightened people made for
safety, out of the cities, toward borders, to get away from
our bombing. To then applaud the US for getting in some supplies
beggars belief. In fact there has been an open dispute between the British
and the Americans which Carl should be aware of - a bitter
conflict over the fact the British wanted to get aid in NOW and the US
had little interest in that, their minds were on killing Taliban, not
feeding civilians.
Two quick final points. One, Carl suggests that the autors of the Cornell
Forum Statement don't seem aware of the clear and present danger we are now
in. I wouldn't draw that conclusion. But I would suggest that if ever
Stars Wars looked stupid it was after seeing two jets bring down the WTC.
And if the CIA and the FBI looked stupid it was after learning
that this event had been over a year in planning and neither agency
had gotten wind of it. Oh yes, Carl, I think there are some very real
dangers, and most of them flow from US policy abroad but that doesn't
make them less real. The problem is that our Keystone Cops are no more
likely to be effective the second time around. Even the Anthrax events now
seem linked to some military looney of our own.
The second point is one that, whenever I debate with conservative members
of DSA, I find dismissed as "pacifist" - that one should not rely
on imperial capitalism to do good things except by accident. No state
risks blood and money out of altruism. In some cases good does come - the
shake up of Japanese society, the rights for women, the rights of
labor, occured under the imperial rule of MacArthur (an interesting
chapter in history). But the first most part, our observations of
"imperial democracy" in action - as in Central or Latin America,
or the Middle East, do not encourage the hope that human rights is a
commodity Bush and Rumsfield have an interest in exporting.
Fraternally,
David McReynolds
DAVIDSON REPLIES TO HIS
CRITICS
I will try to be as brief and clear as possible
in response to these three critics.
First, I am not opposed to printing antiwar statements on portside. I just
didn't think the Cornell statement was very good, because it seemed apparent
to me that much of it had been refuted by events. What was apparent to me,
obviously, is not apparent to others.
Second, I am as dubious of government press releases and biased media as
anyone. That's why I study a wide variety of sources, here and abroad, and
try to make an assessment. I'm one of the few folks I know who has read
through every one of bin Laden's Fat was in English - a rather tortuous
task, I might add.
Third, I think ideas and analyses are best seen as having consequences in a
real context. We can't just wish things into being; we have to deal with
the forces at hand, that history has given us. For instance, we might want
to see an Afghan government that was like RAWA, the women's organization
there. But that's not possible now or in the near future. The real choice
was between the al-Qaeda/Taliban regime and the one being put in place
now, with the Northern Alliance and other anti-Taliban groups, and being
shaped by a US-UN protectorate. The current regime at least allows the
possibility of progressive change. The al-Qaeda/Taliban regime had the
blood of hundreds of thousands on its hands, and if it had been allowed to
continue, the prospects were for hundreds of thousands more dying with no
prospects of positive change. This is not just my opinion, but is widely shared
by progressive analysts with far greater knowledge than me. For instance,
see Ahmed Rashid's book, Taliban.
4. Maybe it will help if my critics see where
I'm coming from. To use a somewhat limited analogy, I see al-Qaeda's
attack on us as similar to Timothy McVeigh's in Oklahoma, only, obviously,
on a much more powerful, far-flung scale. But McVeigh's Christian-White
Supremacist Identity fascism has a lot in common with bin Laden's
theocratic fascism. If the militia groups McVeigh was based in had
followed his lead and launched attacks on the heels of Oklahoma City,
would we have a problem calling on the police, FBI and even National Guard
to stop them, break up their groups and bring them to justice. I hope not.
It would even be important for us to help them do so, and to criticize and
pressure them to do the right thing either when they went overboard or
dragged their feet.
5. I see al-Qaeda as a present danger. Not everyone agrees with this.
Everyone I know says they opposed the attack on 9/11. Fine, but what about
the fact that these people are trying to do something similar to it again
and again, and that they are desperately working to get a CBW and nuclear
capability (not missiles, but the suitcase variety). If you opposed 9/11,
don't you support doing something now, including armed force, to prevent
them from doing it again?‚ I would sum up the main difference between me
and my critics this way: They are "defeatists" and I am a "defencist"
in this conflict. Their main IMMEDIATE goal is stopping the current war,
to DEFEAT US imperialism AND to distance themselves from some terrorists
in that context. My main IMMEDIATE goal is to DEFEND all countries,
including our country, against the theocratic fascism of al-Qaeda wherever
it is rooted, including its secret cells here in the US AND to waged a
more measured, protracted struggle vs global Empire, including US
reactionaries, in that context.
I've written a much longer piece
going deeper into these issues posted on Portside and elsewhere earlier,
but now let me answer a few specific points:
To Warren Montag: I don’t know how many civilians have been killed,
and at this point neither does anyone else. Any are too many. But the 3700
figure can show a lot of things. One can compare it to the nearly 20,000
pieces of ordinance, either dropped from planes or deployed as cruise
missiles so far. That shows that the air war, relative to any other time
in history, has been remarkably effective at focusing on military targets
and has not been deliberately targeting civilians, as was done in Vietnam.
A "daisy-cutter" is a criminal weapon when used against a city,
but its another matter when trying to blast al-Qaeda out of its caves in
the mountains.
To Steven Schroeder: RE: "I'm quite amazed that Carl has signed on to
the 'we have to do something' line of reasoning that I've heard
that repeatedly from my right wing relatives. It assumes that the only
options are military force and passivity--which is simply not true"
I plead guilty to being part of the something crowd; my assessment is that
it includes the vast majority of the country, right, center and
progressive. Most would agree that many means and resources must be used,
and armed force is required as a critical component of stopping and
capturing al-Qaeda. So "only military or ""passivity' is
not the way anyone frames the issue, even the White House. As for Bush's
cowboy rhetoric, I think it's stupid and self-defeating . Luckily, Colin
Powell is in charge of the State Department.
To David McReynolds: "Sorry Carl. The US
attack on Afghanistan had nothing to do with human rights. If so we might
more logically have attacked Saudi Arabia (since most of those on the jets
that hit the World Trade Center were Saudis, and NONE were Afghan), and
human rights are just as much in peril."
Davidson:(This is strange. Yes, they were
Saudis, but they were members of a group based in Afghanistan. Does this
really need an explanation?)
McReynolds "And I don't know anyone (except Carl) who really thinks the US
will help - or even could help -construct a more rational regime in Kabul.
After all, it helped to overthrow the one which Kabul had, in hopes it
would provoke Soviet intervention (as it did). To the US, the Afghans are
nothing but pawns."
(Yes, imperialists are hypocrites, which is
usually the least of their crimes, and Yes, the new regime will be more
rational than the Taliban. Almost anything is more rational than a regime
that bans music, laughter and kite flying. And if I'm the only one you know
who thinks this, all I can say is that you need a wider circle of friends).
McReynolds "Bad as the Taliban were, they did not launch the attack on the
WTC. We have never even seen any proof that Osama Bin Laden pulled off the
attack."
Davidson: ( When I read something like
this coming from a long-time leader of the left and the peace movement,
especially written after bin Laden's latest home video, I'm first, amazed,
and second, more sympathetic to Christopher Hitchens' stinging polemic
about those on the left he considers "soft on crime" and "soft on
fascism.")
Davidson:
To conclude, I'm not so concerned about
criticisms of me, even harsh ones. I've been around long enough to have a
thick skin on these matters. But what I am concerned about is the left. I
think it is painting itself far into a corner where it may take decades to
recover any credibility. It reminds me of the Irish radicals who sided
with Hitler because Germany was an enemy of the British, or the US Black
nationalist groups who were sympathetic to Japan's Greater East Asia
Co-Prosperity Sphere because it was supposedly against White European
Supremacy. The 9/11 events are what many have called a defining moment in
the history of our country, and its important to think a little beyond the
slogans for the next rally.
Carl Davidson, Chicago
MORE
DISCUSSION OF DAVIDSON
|
