escalation not the answer (Re: where do we go from here (and where should we have gone))

[Adam Back]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 09:03:58AM -0700, Ben Weber wrote:
> 'Complain'?  "We kill millions of innocent civilians unjustifiably"?  Give
> me a break, Americans are not the DEVIL, this sounds like something the only
> the devil himself would do.  To kill millions of innocent civilians; this is
> not the American Foreign Policy, never was and never will be.  The real
> American Foreign Policy, not the garbage propaganda you've obviously been
> reading:

> [WWII history stuff]

This has little to do with US middle east policies.

I understand people are emotional at this point, but to be living
under the impression that the US has no part in the escalation is
ignorant of history.  The fundamentalists behind these terrorist
attacks are justifying their actions on the basis of US sponsorship of
Israel which in their view is terrorising Palestinians, and various US
interentionist military acts -- missile attacks, assassination
attempts, blanket bombings etc.  They may or may not have other
agendas, but these historic grievances are what allow them to gain
supporters.

It seems likely that we will see an escalation:

- Israel and Palestine conflict, Israel funded by US, both sides have
  greivances in their escalation of violence

- previous WTC bombing, and US reactions to that

if both sides continue to react with increasing violence where does it
end?

I'm not saying there is an easy answer, but escalation seems unlikely
to help long term political stability.  Unfocused escalation "no
distinction between perpetrators and harborers" it would seem will be
likely to create more victims, who have had family members killed who
were bystanders and previously neutral or antagonistic to the
perpetrators who will then be fodder for future supporters of that
currently small minority of fundamentalist islam calling for jihad on
the US.

Pre-emptive strikes if any should be focused on military targets only
not for the purpose of revenge but for the purpose of reducing the
chance of further attacks.  If a strike would in fact increase chance
of further attacks and contribute to further escalation, I think it
would be a bad idea, and instead attempts should be made to suppress
the current cycle of escalations.

Adam