[Peace-political] Octopus Column

[Jerry Landay]

IMC-ers:

	Today the Octopus publishes my article on the current crisis.  I want to
share it with you.  It does  n o t appear in the usual space under "Old
Curmudge" banner, but as a news briefing item, I believe, on Page 2 or
thereabouts.

	Jerry M. Landay
	Assoc. Prof. Emeritus, Journalism
	University of Illinois

BUSH TEAM BLUSTERS TOWARD PAYBACK UNLIMITED
For the Octopus of 9/20/01
by Jerry M. Landay
Filed 9-17-01
803 words

	Congress has given the Bush administration a virtual blank check to wage
undefined  “war” in the Middle East, using “all necessary and appropriate
force.”  According to a White House interpretation, Bush, not the Congress,
will decide what’s “appropriate.”   He now has $10 billion to spend
militarily, with another $10 billion promised, but without any adaptive
planning, any definitive “enemy,” and with hazy accountability over
spending.

	If a nation blinkered by tears and rage stands silently by, it can expect
far more long-term damage to this country than terrorists produced. Bush’s
unqualified rhetoric threatens a cycle of violence that will change the
world.  Study these utterances:

	The President: “[We will] do generations a favor by
whipping terrorism,
hunting it down, binding it and holding them accountable.”  The
unconditional intent, grammatical fractures and all, should inspire citizens
of a compliant nation to ask serious questions.

	What did Bush mean by “whipping terrorism?”  Deputy Secretary of Defense
Paul D. Wolfowitz provided the exegesis:  “It’s not just simply a matter of
capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries,
removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism.” Ending
states?  What does that mean?

	Pentagon officers explained to R.W. Apple of the New York Times:  “Ending
states who sponsor terrorism” means wiping out governments that refuse to
cooperate.”  Wiping out?  The way we “wiped out” Cambodia?  North Vietnam?
Hiroshima?  Will we nuke Afghanistan to cherry-pick Bin Laden?

	It’s time for the speedy intervention of rhetorical restraint and critical
intelligence.  Consider the consequences of trying to “wipe out” terrorist
havens, and the response of Islamic America-haters throughout the Middle
East – in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Pakistan,
Afghanistan.  How many U.S. troops will it take to pacify Kandahar,
Damascus, Baghdad?

	Forget the Gulf War model.  It dealt with just one regressive country – and
Saddam is still in charge.  You cannot defeat the Middle East. One can be
readily defeated BY it, as Napoleon and Rommel – and the British and Soviets
in Afghanistan -- discovered. It’s not defeatist but realistic to warn that
America could bog itself down in an incalculably depleting war, while
starving out urgent social and civic needs at home.

	My son Jonathan Landay, defense correspondent for the Knight-Ridder
newspapers, reported last week:  “Experts cautioned that U.S. forces are
poorly designed for the all-out war on terrorism that President Bush
declared. They said it would take considerable time, effort and money to
retool a military that is
still largely equipped and structured the way it
was during the Cold War. “

	Our aging “new-war” Washington warriors must consider the cycle of
instability and reprisal that unplanned, unrestrained war would trigger.
Muslim mobs that cheered the terrorists pose enormous dangers to leaders who
submit to harsh American demands for militant cooperation.  Mobs unleashed
potentially have the trigger of the Middle Eastern “oil weapon” in their
hands, holding to ransom America’s oil-guzzling transportation and economic
health.

	Israel, our Middle Eastern client, would confront waves of payback from
Palestinians with little to lose, requiring direct American military
support.  It’s doubtful Israeli hardliners would adopt a more realistic
Palestinian policy in exchange.   Here, no amount of “star warring,” which
Bush continues to support, can intercept a bio-bomb in a basket.

	It’s clear that the neo-conservative apparat driving Bush is close to
achieving its regressive goals:  notably, combining unrestrained payouts to
defense industry with ending government obligations to society.  There has
been no reasoned debate.  The “loyal Democratic opposition” in the Senate is
defaulting on its responsibilities to question, let alone oppose.  It has
learned nothing from the Tonkin Gulf and Cambodia.

	Citizens must shake off shock and avoidance, and demand accountability
before the rhetorical stampede to violence overwhelms us. There are creative
solutions for treating terrorism.  The Quaker practice of “shunning” the
antisocial in their midst provides an example: this diplomatic application
would suggest the total isolation, politically and economically, of all
nations that succor terrorists.  Nations that pledge support should join the
quarantine, or themselves face shunning.  There must be a Marshall Plan for
Palestine, and stepped-up diplomacy to foster Palestinian nationhood.  We
must convince reluctant nations that aid and abet terrorists to disarm and
disgorge these apparats on their own.  We are hated for reasons that must be
addressed.

	Critical, activists on the left must use power of intellect and political
skill to discipline the jingoistic polemics from the right, abandoning
ego-driven divisiveness, single-issue myopia, nihilistic inaction, and
unelectable candidates, in favor of constructive, hard-headed, and informed
base-building politics.  Capitulation to radical conservatism can put reason
out of business permanently.

We should expect slings and arrows from nincompoops on the right – labels of
traitor, terrorist lover, Commie – the mindless lexicon of Savanarola
Falwell – inspired by Vietnam War peace forces that saved America.  Only
imposing accountibility on national leadership will move the American mind
out of mothballs.
#