W's Peace

[Terrance]

Judy Panetta wrote:
> 
> To use a term favored on this list...Paul, are you being ironic? Do you
> really believe that Mr. Kelly is presenting a reasonable argument here? Who
> was it that requested that Doug leave the sixties behind? What I found most
> remarkable about this article is its rhetoric and Mr. Kelly's nostalgia for
> the sixties.
> 
> I envy the man. I wish that I could seek to understand the world with such
> graceful simplicity.

Kelly's Reactionary Left sounds a lot like Rushdie's "Savage"  Left. 

And both  descriptions are fair and accurate descriptions of  
"sections of the Left" (Rushdie).  However, why lump All pacifists into
this radical and militant leftover Left? 

That's not fair. Not accurate. 


And I agree, it is rather nostalgic, as in a Ray-Gun/ Brock Vond/ Hector
Zuniga 
nostalgia (VL). 

Prudent Pacifists and the pragmatic Left need to be  part of what I
think is an ongoing  constructive debate. I don't agree with those that
argue that no debate is taking place. It is. The debate includes,
balancing anti-terror legislation and civil liberties, what response is
appropriate, diplomatic, financial, military. 

It is not naive or idealistic or self serving or even Lefty to argue
that Bush may accomplish more in terms of both preventing  terrorism
and  progress toward
peace in any number of troubled regions of the world if he does not use
the military option. 

 He has already accomplished quite a lot w/o a military strike.  


There is an opportunity here. 

Even if one is not a pacifist, if one is sane, the  objective  is peace,
in Israel, in Ireland, in Kashmir, in Afghanistan...

Look at Afghanistan. What a mess. What is the best way to end the
suffering? How do we get the radicals out and get a working government
in? Will more bombing only   compound the problems there? The threat of
a military strike has caused some problems already, but the threat is
also a very powerful diplomatic weapon. But what happens when the threat
doesn't change things? 

Difficult. 

War may not be the most practical and pragmatic course of action. 

And this is not necessarily a slogan of the leftover left even if it too
calls for peace and not war. 

It is by no means as simple as make love not war.  

Yesterday the Russians agreed to sell more arms to Iran. The Brits and
the USA have been reaching out to Iran as well. Pakistan, some experts
say, is what the terrorists want--the only bomb in the Muslim world. If
Iraq ever gets a bomb or something like one, they will use it. Burning
American flags and marching on Washington is not going to prevent Iraq
from manufacturing chemical and biological weapons. But, while bombs
may retard their efforts, isn't this program akin to the militant Left's
position? The Left says, "we ain't going OVER THERE there let other
people
murder babies" while the military response says, the cost in lives OVER 
THERE is worth it."

George H. W. Bush spread a lot of money around to build his coalition
for war. 
Maybe, W is building a coalition for peace? 

No? It sure looks like it to me. Maybe he wants a Nobel? 

First, Bush has Mobilized law enforcement agencies around the world to
investigate, apprehend, and bring to justice those responsible. 

Second, he has advanced international cooperation to stop terrorism. 

Third, he is working with the USA Congress to pass legislation. 

Fourth, He is educating people in the USA about Islam.  

Fifth, Bush has moved to preservation and protect the civil liberties of
citizens 
(particularly of vulnerable Muslim minorities in the USA)  even as he
pushes tougher law and requests more police and investigative power. 

Sixth, Bush is working closely with the UN. 

Seventh, Bush is forming and leading a diplomatic, political, and
economic coalition that is bringing pressure to bear against the
governing regimes of nations              that give support or shelter
to terror networks.

Eighth, Bush has responded with compassion and generous aid to the
suffering of the innocent peoples in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and
other countries, even though these Nations support terror networks. 

Ninth, A Palestinian State. Bush is working on it. And he has
intensified USA efforts to secure a just and lasting peace in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Last, and most important, Bush is addressing the economic recession in
the USA. 

What Bush could do, 

He could lead the international community in cooperative efforts to
reduce stockpiles of
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and materials.  

Support an international ban on the sale and transfer of weapons to
zones of conflict.