Amerikaka (NP?)

[The Great Quail]

Mike writes, unfortunately feeling the need to add that dread "k",

>Trouble is that every rocket that hits Afghanistan recruits more 
>young people for the anti-American crusade.

As I have also pointed out; it is definitely a concern. But as I have 
stated, I think immediate goals are also quite important. Frankly, I 
am wearying of arguing this, and this will probably be one of my last 
posts on the situation.

>You Americans may have to ask yourself what you want to survive, 
>what you want your future to be as a nation. The Amerikan empire 
>(hegemony more accurately) is  threatened by an enemy which grows 
>stronger the more it is attacked. (Sounds like Rome and the 
>Christians - look who won).

It is not like Rome and the Christians, for many reasons. Islam has a 
limited appeal to the West; and the warped, fundamentalist version of 
Islam being offered by the followers of Jihad has even less appeal. 
At least Chrsitianity offered a better and more cohesive version of 
the future than exhausted Roman ennui and fractured and competing 
faiths. There are also obvious territorial, strategic and cultural 
differences.

>Government in their pocket? Maybe, but "illegal", what's that got to 
>do with anything?
>When did the Western powers ever give a fig for legality in defining 
>government. Being on our side is what matters.

Well, to an extent I agree with you; however the fact that only three 
nations previously recognized the Taliban certainly says something.

>It is not really a matter of the righteousness of Western morality 
>and the superiority of modernity asserting itself against the 
>barbarian hordes.

I don't recall saying that at all.

>There's a dialectic here which won't go away. Morris Berman wrote a 
>piece in the Guardian drawing parallels between the decline of Rome 
>and The United States current situation.

Yes, I have read it; I agree there are some parallels, but I think 
modern technology, communication and philosophy need to be taken more 
into account. I think Roman analogies are useful at times, but 
limited, and cannot be mapped out as destiny.

>When the Soviet Union died the Amerika  lost its Other and now can 
>only eat itself. Or put another way, the Marxist dialectic may have 
>failed, but the dialectic hasn't. The U.S. middle east policies 
>aren't the fuel, they are the spark which sets the dialectic burning 
>along its interface. It is the overwhelming assertion of global 
>dominance which is the fuel.

Wow, I disagree with you so much on almost every point you make 
above, that I would rather just state my disagreement than launch 
into a huge thread. But I do think you stated it elegantly.

>That is what we anti-Amerikans (to greater or lesser degrees) resent 
>and resist. Until a positive opposition to capitalism returns to the 
>world arena,

Yes, Commuinism worked so well.

>terror is likely to be a major expression of rage against the 
>dominator. The only force capable of suppressing terrorism is a 
>force on the same side of dialectic as the terrorists, but a 
>constructive one.

Well, your intellectualizing of the problem as a Marxist dialectic is 
attractive, but I think it falls apart upon entry to the real world. 
Not only do you not take into account all the other factors I for one 
have been mentioning -- the history of the region, etc. -- in order 
to lay the blame squarely in "Amerika," but you then suggest that we 
enter a constructive relationship with a group that has vowed to 
exterminate us without hesitation. You have noticed that they are 
religious fanatics, yes? That their claims of pan-Islamic loyalty are 
spurious and manipulative, even by the admission of most Islamic 
countries?

>The current attack on terrorism is an attack on a Hydra.  What can 
>it achieve but more heads, smaller maybe, but more of them. Yes they 
>declared war but it is not a challenge which can be fought 
>militarily.

I think I address this in my post.

>There are plenty of positive ways out of here, but none of them are 
>short term, and none of them are largely military, and all of them 
>involve continued globalisation. Not of the corporate kind, but of 
>the international co-operation kind.

OK, for the millionth time, let's hear some of those positive ways. 
Let's actually HEAR some of them, some positive ways to deal with 
this non-militarily, ways that will actually WORK, and are not 
predicated on the fact that "Amerika" needs to be brought down 
anyway. Though having said that, I do actually agree with most of 
your statement -- though I think that taking a long term approach to 
mitigating Middle-Eastern tensions does not preclude an immediate 
military response to cripple the networks as the exist today.

>The American people have to evolve new levels of reason or accept 
>increasing levels of insecurity. They have to engage globally with 
>the aim of social justice,

I think that I have a less idealistic view of social justice. But 
again, any suggestions would be welcome, in you care to elaborate 
your point.

>or (I fear) we have a fraught future agrowing around us. The rest of 
>us in the West have to do the same but America must lead in social 
>(r)evolution as it has in the economic sphere.

It seems that you spend most of your post decrying America's economic 
policies, and then you make that statement...? I am a bit confused.

>         Islam as Ahab?

Can you please explain? Do you mean that Islam is blindly pursuing 
America as a White Whale?

Best,

--Quail
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth:
http://www.TheModernWord.com

If I have said anything to the contrary I was mistaken.
If I say anything to the contrary again I shall be mistaken again.
Unless I am mistaken now. Into the dossier with it in any case,
in support of whatever thesis you fancy.
      --Samuel Beckett, "The Unnamable"