[Peace-discuss] [Fwd: Why London, Why Now?]

[chason at shout.net]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Why London, Why Now?

Patrick Doherty

07/07/05 "TomPaine.com" - - As I write this, the reports are still coming
in on the extent of the casualties from the London subway bombings. The
latest AP report says 40 have been killed and 1,000 wounded. There can be
no justification for such an attack, which must be condemned and the
perpetrators must brought to (British) justice. My condolences go out to
the people of London and I can only hope that my friends and former
colleagues there are safe.

That said, now is the time for progressives to lead and not just wait for
Bush. It is imperative that the narrative that emerges from the
devastation in London is not one that plays into the hands of Al Qaeda or
into the hands of the neocons, as happened after 9/11.

Don't Repeat Past Mistakes

That post-9/11 narrative said that America was attacked because "they hate
our freedoms." This turned out to be the first of many lies that paved the
way to our current strategic disaster. In fact, America was attacked
because Al Qaeda hated our policies in the Middle East and, given their
relative inability to strike effectively at either the Saudi or Israeli
governments-their main enemies-they struck at those governments' primary
sponsor, the United States.

Yet that simple narrative, "because they hate our freedoms," constructed
carefully by the White House communications team, laid the foundation for
the war on Iraq and the expansion of the war on terrorism well beyond the
justifiable and proportionate retaliation on the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan. Americans believed Al Qaeda was targeting the United States
because we stood for democracy, when, in reality, they hated us because we
massively supported oppressive regimes in the Middle East.

This time, with that narrative already established, the work of
interpreting the London subway bombings through the Bush worldview is a
much simpler matter. Regrettably, Tony Blair has already begun the spin in
his statement from Gleneagles:

"It's important, however, that those engaged in terrorism realize that our
determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than
their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a
desire to impose extremism on the world."

We must remember that fear is the primary objective of terrorist attacks.
Violence is merely a means-and it works. In the best of circumstances, it
is difficult for elected representatives to effectively address the fears
of a terrorized constituency and produce effective policies. That's
because when people are insecure, they want to see action, and
counterterrorism requires an incremental strategy of covert intelligence
and law enforcement work that targets active terrorist cells combined with
political and economic development strategies that drain the swamp of
support for the terrorist networks. It's slow, under-the-radar work.

It's also difficult because most people only understand traditional
military operations that are designed to destroy or control a given
objective. A terror attack in a democracy is much more complex: It uses
fear to distort debate and decision making. Look at America: after 9/1, we
went to war in Iraq without questioning the president. To make matters
worse however, the Bush administration has tried to conflate the Cold War
nuclear threat and the war on terror in order to create an existential
fear that, so far, has resulted in a blank check from Congress.

Democrats cannot afford to parrot the White House narrative again.
Luckily, Americans are more aware of terrorism, terrorists and
international affairs. That provides the space we need to defuse the
fearmongering. But we also need to understand why and produce an
alternative response.

Why London? Why Now?

For the moment, I am assuming this was the work of Al Qaeda. If that is
the case, the timing of the attack is significant. The G8 Summit has, as
its primary focus, two issues that could strike at the heart of Islamic
extremism by draining the swamp: climate change and poverty.

Addressing climate change requires radically improving transportation fuel
efficiency and transitioning off fossil fuels as a source of energy. To
the extent that the United States and the rest of the world adopts
sensible climate change policies, the strategic importance of the Persian
Gulf diminishes and America has more room to promote real democratic and
economic reform in the region. Al Qaeda's strategy, however, requires
American dependence on Persian Gulf energy, to ensure that America
continues to wage war to protect its energy supply.

To show just how dire our global energy situation is, Saudi Arabia
announced today that OPEC will not be able to meet Western demand for oil
by 2015, only 10 years out. Given the timing, this is Saudi Arabia
effectively saying that the time has come to turn toward more efficient
use of oil, which is also one of the main ways of dealing with climate
change. Saudi Arabia just undercut the Bush administration's position in
Gleneagles. That should have been a major blow to the United States, but
it will now be swept away by the bombings.

Addressing poverty in the developing world, particularly in Africa, also
hurts Al Qaeda's side. To the extent that America is seen as an imperial
aggressor, planting strings of military bases to protect access to
economic resources, the Al Qaeda propaganda is reinforced. Significant
progress on global poverty, however, also "drains the swamp" of the
recruits, resources, territory and cooperation that these groups need to
operate.

But the decisions on what would come out of Gleneagles were made well
before the summit meeting. Changing those decisions would be
diplomatically quite difficult. Odds are that the terrorists knew this.
Therefore the attacks are about changing the direction of the momentum,
about destroying the narrative of progress and hope that the G8 Summit has
produced. The terrorists want to stop the climate change and poverty focus
of the international community and bring it back to terrorism. Ultimately,
Al Qaeda wants to keep the West distracted from advancing the policies
that will deal a heavy blow to Islamic extremism.

Unfortunately, with Bush still resisting any progress on climate change,
that job was not going to be too difficult. Sadly, with American neocons
still chomping at the bit to attack Iran and Syria, Al Qaeda will find
willing accomplices for their fearmongering in the think tanks of the
right. How neocons will spin this into calls for military strikes on Iran
and Syria is yet to be seen. But call they will.

Looking Forward

So now it is time for progressives to keep the focus on draining the
swamp, not on counterproductive military adventures that will only
reinforce Al Qaeda propaganda. Aggressive and innovative policies to
address climate change and poverty are two of the most powerful ways
accomplish this. So is a smart exit strategy from Iraq and a final
settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20050708/cebd3b58/untitled-2.html