not replying to the attacks
Letter to Jim Kunstler:
Hi Jim
I am one of the nuts who thought the best response from the USA (to 9/11) would be no response, especially not a military response and especially especially not the invasion of one or more countries in search of a fraction of those countries hiding terrorists.
How do you incur the wrath of terrorism: start or engage in a war that fights fire with more fire. If that's too vague, what I mean is, Bush's responses to 911 have done nothing to promote US interests. At best they could have sent in small elite 'gangs' to root out terrorists, thereby acting as small scale terror against smal scale terror. What we now have is civilian slaughter as the background to an asymmetrical battle where the US loses more than it ever lost (in 9/11), both in terms of money, prestige and human life. This is, of course, if we take Bush's response to 911 to go into Iraq (in search of terrorists) at face value. Since I don't believe we can, all bets are off.
In the real world though, and given human nature, I still cannot see a better response to 911 (where all perpetrators were killed in the act) than to find better ways of getting along with the people who feel they hate us.
No comments:
Post a Comment