If I may here are the last paragraphs of the Berman article, then check out the Huntington quote under my signature:
It would be nice to think that, in the war against terror, our side, too, speaks of deep philosophical ideas -- it would be nice to think that someone is arguing with the terrorists and with the readers of Sayyid Qutb. But here I have my worries. The followers of Qutb speak, in their wild fashion, of enormous human problems, and they urge one another to death and to murder. But the enemies of these people speak of what? The political leaders speak of United Nations resolutions, of unilateralism, of multilateralism, of weapons inspectors, of coercion and noncoercion. This is no answer to the terrorists. The terrorists speak insanely of deep things. The antiterrorists had better speak sanely of equally deep things. Presidents will not do this. Presidents will dispatch armies, or decline to dispatch armies, for better and for worse.
But who will speak of the sacred and the secular, of the physical world and the spiritual world? Who will defend liberal ideas against the enemies of liberal ideas? Who will defend liberal principles in spite of liberal society's every failure? President George W. Bush, in his speech to Congress a few days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, announced that he was going to wage a war of ideas. He has done no such thing. He is not the man for that.
Philosophers and religious leaders will have to do this on their own. Are they doing so? Armies are in motion, but are the philosophers and religious leaders, the liberal thinkers, likewise in motion? There is something to worry about here, an aspect of the war that liberal society seems to have trouble understanding -- one more worry, on top of all the others, and possibly the greatest worry of all.
Paul Berman has written for the magazine about Vaclav Havel, Vicente Fox and other subjects. He is the author of the coming ''Terror and Liberalism'' (W.W. Norton), from which this essay is adapted.
Perception, if we intend to "force" the leaders of Muslim countries to get rid of madrasas, perhaps we should first rid ourselves of a leader who is a crusading Christian.
Roger, I agree with you about print editions. I always read it there first, then go online and post a link. I cannot imagine NOT reading the Economist. God Save the Queen!
The posts I most appreciate here are those which show both sides of the story. It's easy to take pot shots at cultures we know little or relatively little about. It's harder (and ultimately more valuable) to identify where we've gone wrong ourselves. If we try to look at ourselves as a nation from the point of view of others who notice (to put it on pop-psych terms) our inability to recognize boundaries, we can understand their progression from admiration, to admiration tinged with frustration, to resentment, to fear, to hatred. I think it's much more useful for us as a people to understand the havoc wreaked by nationalism, jingoism, and fundamentalism in our own country. Here's a situation which we can remedy with protest, education, and votes, not with warfare.
The Berman article in the Magazine must be read in its entirety. Absolutely fascinating.
Kara wrote:
Perception, if we intend to "force" the leaders of Muslim countries to get rid of madrasas, perhaps we should first rid ourselves of a leader who is a crusading Christian.
Another well meaning person who hates Bush so much she is blind to every other aspect of the current situation. For all your education how can you develop mental concepts that are so distorted. Bush will soon be gone but the American people want someone just like him but more eloquent. It is our way of life that is under attack----- why can't you see that?
I disagree with several of your points, perception (of course). Please let me start by saying I think it unfair that you think our thinking is falacious. Remember -the key word you're looking for is different.
1. the imperialistic arrogance of the US (not just Bush, though he does represent that particularly well) is the major tool for terrorist movements's trawling for suicide bombers and other followers who will help implement the leaders' plans. I don't think our imperialist attitude and actions will allow us to reach world domination, the world wouldn't allow that. I hope.
We don't abandon allies, you say? That's pretty funny. Saddam was once our ally, I would consider the destruction of his cities and the taking over of his oil an abandonment. And, well, france was a long time ally, hopefully we will patch this rift, but we abandoned them when they stood up for themselves. What kind of ally we then?
The madras schools, in that they teach education with religion, are not in and of themselves a bad thing. Violent teaching against americans and the west needs to cease. But, as they say, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar. I am not saying that we shouldn't hunt and catch (or kill - because of the fight-to-the-death mentality) all the fundementalist leaders we find who are embedded in this lifestyle. But, we need to support these countries of civil and economic unrest with all we have, killing the fundememntalist leaders will just martyr them, if we stop there it'd be like we hadn't even started.
I disagree that bin Laden's thinking is the same as his teacher's. That just doesn't seem realistic to me. I think it's a dangerous pressumption to think that's the case.
Many of all americans don't know where iraq is on a map. I do. I'm not absolutely clear that it matters one iota. Let's not assume that a dislike for Bush will affect the thinking on a war with iraq. I think you would have made a more valid point if you'd said that most of the people who are protesting this war would protest any war because they hate war. Though, that thought is probably statistically wrong.
Your last paragraph is moot since we will have to wait and see what happens.
Now, the first part of your third paragraph is pretty much a paraphrase of the author of the article. I would assume that's true of bin Laden as well. yes.
I agree that we need to stop coddling isreal. I've been becoming more certain of that as the years go by.
I also agree that with the immediate action on fundemental leadership there needs to be a followed up, long-term campaign to nip terrorism in the bud. We just differ on how to go about doing that.
Every major religions in the world teach peace and love at their roots. Interpretation and reteachings have altered them all. We need to make it so these men and women are less desperate and less willing to join their wills with those of the fundementalist leaders.
Bush and freedom = oxymoron ....... or some kind of moron anyhow ..
perc
Two things you keep misunderstanding:
the difference between some people's (eg my own) notions about Bush's competence, and our notions about the inappropriate influence of fundamentalist christianity in government. Those are two quite distinct disagreements.
And second, it clearly isn't America's 'way of life' (freedom and liberty, I assume you mean) that is under attack. If it were just that, then Canada and Finland and Australia, etc, would have been targeted.
Further notes on press coverage of the war...
Quote:Even in countries like France, where both government and public opinion opposed the war, reporting appears to be largely objective, as news organizations struggle to gather information from Washington, London, Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq.
Only in Britain has the presence of British troops in Iraq given a patriotic tint to coverage in some newspapers, notably Rupert Murdoch's Sun, which proclaimed on its front page on Friday that "U.K.'s Marines and Paras Lead Attack."
After their experience in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, however, many European news managers are also wary of information provided by the United States and Britain. They say that during that campaign to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait, they were manipulated by official versions that later proved erroneous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/international/worldspecial/23EURO.html
There was a nice little discussion of the history of dissent in this country just now on NPR. There has always been dissent against war; there have always been those who link dissent to treachery; and there have always been administrations DELIGHTED to link dissent and opposition to treachery for their own political reasons. The dissenters I understand and respect; the administrations' use of bad arguments I understand but dislike; but the guys in the middle,"ordinary Americans," who presumably have studied history as the rest of us have, but who are opposed to their brothers and sisters expressing their dissent -- these are the ones for whom I have neither liking nor respect. Their lack of appreciation for the idea of collective and individual independence that this country was built on is inexplicable -- given our history and tradition. Take another look, please, at the David Horowitz quotation, below. It represents a point of view which is more than just odious. It's really dangerous.
Heres another article which examines World Press Coverage:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12144-2003Mar22.html
Quote:
War News Filtered Through Nations' Politics
Reporting Is Extensive, but Nature of Coverage Largely Depends on Stance of Governments
... As the American- and British-led invasion of Iraq unfolds, what people see and read around the world still largely depends on where they live and on the stance their governments have taken. Many editorials have been relentlessly critical of the United States. But there is better access to and more information about this war than during any recent conflict ...
Nothing really surprising, but it is something to be considered. Its not a long article.
<an aside. I have a favor to ask of you, does anyone have a link to Rumsfeld singing?>
That was a good round-up, Timber. My sources are limited to NPR, NYTimes and the BBC. I think NPR relies a good deal on the BBC so some of that is duplicative. But of course we are not getting as thorough coverage as we like to think (and the Pentagon likes us to think!) we're getting. (On NPR, for example, there is a considerable contrast between the reports of John Burnett -- embedded -- and Ann Garrels (sitting it out in a hotel in Baghdad).
The internet is invaluable at a time like this -- no truth is the whole truth, but at least we can make our own patchwork of truths without having to rely on one point of view. One of the great things about A2K is that we give each other links to those patches.
timber
Nice piece...thank you.
I've always found the following site extremely valuable, with it's links to various papers, articles, and journals...
http://www.aldaily.com/
Sad news ... unverified video just shown on Al Jazeera purports to show Iraqi executions of Coalition POWs. There surely will be more on this soon.
Baghdad :: Paul Wood :: 1325GMT
We can see white smoke billowing in the distance which I suspect is from fires which are being set along the Tigres to try and flush out a suspected downed pilot.
The Kalashnikov fire we can hear in the distance is for the same purpose.
There has been a reward posted by President Saddam Hussein of about $33,000 for capturing a live pilot or live British or American soldier, the reward is just half that for a dead one.
This is a country where the average wage is about $30 a month, it is a huge amount of money and there will be tremendous propaganda value in displaying a captured pilot on the television.
from the BBC's journalist diaries....
timber re POW's - Pentagon denied any missing troops-film shown on Iraq T.V. Pentagon says well yeah we do have some personnel missing. damn it tell the truth. i really hate misinformation ...its horrendous to have this happen and i am so mad and sad but tell the truth. re coaliton plane reported shot down over Bagdad- again Pentagon denies- then oops well yeah we do have a plane missing. WE CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH.........
LittleK wrote:
1. the imperialistic arrogance of the US (not just Bush, though he does represent that particularly well) is the major tool for terrorist movements's trawling for suicide bombers and other followers who will help implement the leaders' plans. I don't think our imperialist attitude and actions will allow us to reach world domination, the world wouldn't allow that. I hope.
It is not my conclusion that the US is imperialistic and seeks world domination----this is strictly the position and domain of the Anti-war folks and of course it is wrong headed. If we sought world domination we wouldn't have given so many nations back to their people. Kuwait being one example---why didn't we just keep it after we kicked Saddam out?
We are forced to rid the world of the monsters----if we don't do it then who will. The UN is not capable---they don't have an army and have no authority to raise one. Who besides the US and Britain can accomplish this---the world has shirked that duty leaving it to us. We have not sought this unpleasant duty---we have it by default.
<We don't abandon allies, you say? That's pretty funny. Saddam was once our ally, I would consider the destruction of his cities and the taking over of his oil an abandonment. And, well, france was a long time ally, hopefully we will patch this rift, but we abandoned them when they stood up for themselves. What kind of ally we then?>
This of course is a ridiculous statement-- how could you possibly place Saddam in that classification unless you are sympathetic to him and not the US. France chose to separate themselves from us---not the other way around.
< disagree that bin Laden's thinking is the same as his teacher's. That just doesn't seem realistic to me. I think it's a dangerous pressumption to think that's the case. >
Bin Laden and his Egyptian physician who may well be the brain behind Bin Laden, are using Qutb's philosophy to their own ends especially the use of martyrdom as a weapon against the west.
The rest of this is an exercise in futility----very tiring ----I suspect you are so deeply entrenched that even Aristotle could not change your mind.
