FOR WHAT ITS WORTH...Again

Its been a while since I've commented on the use of terrorism as a tactic or more so as a strategy. Way, back on Sept. 24th, 2001 I tried to sum up some of my thoughts about where we, on the left, ought to be after the Sept. 11th attacks in New York. Now following, years of bombings in Iraq, the London bombing, and last night those in Egypt, I think I'll just reprint what I wrote then. Not all of you agreed with my thoughts at that time and not all of you will agree with them now. Some of those thoughts sound like some of Bush's rhetoric. However, for him its nothing but rhetoric while for me it is actually what I believe. The big difference is that I stand for Social Justice and he stands for quite the opposite. Anyway, feel free to comment. (For those of you who are subscribers to the Oread Daily, you can go to the Blog and directly comment there - or you can send me your comments at the OD's address)

Here goes:

Sept. 24, 2001 Volume 2001.75


OREAD DAILY


FOR WHAT ITS WORTH

Here are some thoughts I would like to share with my friends on the
left, progressive and anti-war activists. I won't be spending much
time here running down the litany of bad stuff our enemies carry out,
believe, propagate. That is not my aim just now. So please keep
that in mind, before you answer, yeah, but what about...

· Mistreatment of people because of race, gender, ethnicity,
nationality, class, religion, sexual orientation, etc. is wrong
wherever it occurs and we should be outspoken about that.

· We cannot allow ourselves to appear to be in bed with the Taliban,
Al-Quida, Bin Ladin , etc. It has been entirely too easy to tar the
progressive forces as erstwhile allies of some of the most despicable
personages around of late. This is to no small measure our own
fault. It is time for us to lay out our beliefs and make it clear we
support those who hold something akin to them, and oppose those who
don't. This means we can't have "our" bad guys be exempt just
because they and the US are currently at loggerheads or because the
US views them as enemies. This means we should fight against the
sanctions on Iraq, but we should at the same time make it clear we
would like to see Saddam Hussein out. It is easy for us to point out
how the US had ties to the creation of the Taliban, but couldn't
someone just as easily ask why "we" have not been more vocal in our
opposition to this repressive regime? After all, outside of a few
woman's groups I haven't heard much about leftist demonstrations,
rallies etc. ever targeting the Taliban. How is it that we rightfully
condemn Israel's oppressive treatment of the Palestinians, while
keeping pretty much to ourselves about Saddam's treatment of Kurds,
Syria's use of chemical weapons on its own populace, Sudan's policies
toward its non Muslim population, etc. etc.? All I'm saying here is
we shouldn't be picking and choosing. If its wrong its wrong and we
have to be up front in our condemnation of all injustice.

· It is not the 60s. This "war" is not Vietnam. The Taliban are not
the NLF. Osama Bin Ladin is not Che.

· The US cannot be allowed to do whatever it wants to whomever it
wants (This includes, in addition to the obvious, "our" refusal to
participate in things like the biological/chemical weapons protocols,
our abandonment of treaties that don't suit us, or disregard for
international law when it applies to us).

· Targeting and/or killing civilians is not okay. This includes the
use of commercial jets to bring down towers, suicide bombers to blow
up people eating pizza, B-52s to reign destruction on helpless
civilians, embargoes which kill thousands of innocents).

· A nation has an obligation to defend its people from being killed
without provocation. Either people who have carried out a horrendous
crime (such as that which occurred on September 11) are put in a
position where they can do no further harm, by being handed over and
put into custody, or the principle of self-defense applies with all
its consequences. This may mean action which leads to the deaths of
those responsible for such acts. However, this response should be
proportionate and innocent people should not be harmed.

· Clearly it is not the right of the leaders of the US to decide how
others should live (which is usually based on self interest). Our
leaders weren't outraged by the Taliban on September 10th.

· We should support forces fighting for things we believe in and
working to overthrow oppressive regimes wherever they may be and
whoever they may be. Reactionary Mullahs are no better then
reactionary generals, preachers, and Presidents around the world.
Oppression in Iran is not somehow better than oppression in
Guatemala. Both need our attention.

· We need to understand that there does in fact exist an independent
radical, fundamentalist, Islamic ideology and global outlook. It is
a reactionary international movement with aspirations to destroy
democracy. Its ideology is medieval, opposed to progress in every
sense. Its policy is the brutal repression of women, labor, peasants
and any dissenting social force. The type of society envisioned and
enforced by the Taliban in Afghanistan is a good example of what
these forces are fighting for (and it is very similar to the society
that Jerry Falwell envisions - as long as you replace Islam with
Christianity). Al-Quida would not go quietly away if the Israeli's
suddenly began to treat the Palestinians justly. They have a world
outlook. They are against what WE are for. That should be clear.
How all that relates to the US government's outlook doesn't really
matter. We are for freedom of religion, for women's equality, for
the right of speech, etc. The al-Quida ideology is not. Marx, for
example, would and did, in fact, describe bourgeois democracy (even
capitalism) as a step forward from religious obscurantism and
feudalism. We need to make clear we do, too. We need to do this at
the same time that we condemn the US bombing of civilians in
Afghanistan, or US support for repressive regimes, at the same time
that we point out that the US was with Bin Laden when he opposed the
Soviets. Why hasn't the left been up in arms about the threats
against women in Kashmir by guerrilla's aligned with the Taliban,
with Bin Laden, with the radical, fundamentalist, Islamic philosophy?

· We need to make it immanently clear that the radical fundamentalist
brand of Islam described above is not representative of the vast,
vast majority who practice that faith. Neither does Pat Roberston
represent most Christians, or ultra-Orthodox proponents of a Jewish
theocracy and worse represent most Jews.

· The left has to accept there really are people capable and willing
to use weapons of mass destruction at any time and against anyone who
they see as standing in their way. Is it our position to just sit
around and watch? I hope not. So what is our position? If we know
their is a rapist living down the block, do we say, we'll lets just
wait until he rapes somebody else, then we'll condemn rape? This
could be applied to al-Quida or the American reactionaries I've heard
lately on television saying the US should be ready to use nukes.

· In the days ahead, we will have to make distinctions between the
warriors and the war, between the generals and the "foot soldiers,"
between the heads of state and the people of the state (including our
state.)

· And as hard as it seems for us to accept, everything about the
United States is not awful, all her people are not awful. Our "way of
life" is not all bad.

All the forces on the right will now use this "War Against Terrorism"
as a pretext to try and gain everything they have dreamed of, at
home, and around the world. They will use this opportunity well to
attack us and all progressive forces wherever they may be. Civil
liberties will be in danger. Racism may explode. They will use the
whipped up "patriotism" to their advantage and it will not be easy to
counteract. But we are obligated to do it just the same. We can
defeat them, if only we dare.

But we have to be clear, we have to be able to understand and explain
what is most complex. We have to be consistent. We have to put on
the table the type of society we are fighting to create. We have to
learn to cast aside worn out dogmas and understand the world we live
in. We can't continue on "reacting." We can't make our decisions
based on what our enemies decide. We have to present the people (as
the OD says, "whoever they might be") a clear picture of what we
believe, a clear picture of how those beliefs are played out in the
world, a clear choice for a just future. We're not doing that very
well at the moment.

Fundamentally we have to say who we are, what we are, and what we
believe, and we have to apply it across the board, no matter the
situation.

These will be difficult times, but also times of opportunity.

We will have differences but we should have a pretty good framework
with which we can all agree. In some strange way, John Lennon,
actually laid out a pretty fair description of this when he wrote:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man (and a sisterhood of women) Imagine all the
people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one