Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 20:18
"He Who Warns of Mass Murder Is Excused of It"
In the interests of equal space for the equally"aggrieved," I should of course give you the full text of the statement by the mujahidin of the Secret Organization of Al Qaida-Europe.
I'm being facetious. But Tariq Ali means it. I think the message of Ali's article can best be presented as follows:
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait back in 1990, we should have allowed bin Laden to do the job of dislodging him. And had bin Laden then taken over Kuwait and used it as a base of operations, that would have been just fine. To do it ourselves was to impose our violence on the Muslim world.
In fact, we didn't let bin Laden dislodge Saddam. We imposed our violence on him and dislodged him ourselves. Having done so, of course, it was an imposition of violence to have imposed terms on his government. We should, after the war, simply have let him go his merry way--free, for instance, to develop WMD as he pleased. Had we simply ignored the issue of terms, we wouldn't have had to enforce them, and thus would not have had to impose sanctions (more violence). Not having imposed sanctions (or engaged in coercive inspections), we would thereby have avoided the 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001 terrorist attacks that came our way as a result of our intrusions into Muslim affairs. Of course, had Saddam Hussein used this opportunity to develop WMD, that consequence would have been perfectly acceptable in the Tariq Ali Universe. A nuclear armed Iraq? No big deal. Iraq with weaponized anthrax? Not a problem. Iraq with VX nerve gas? Not an imminent threat to anyone.
As a result of enforcing sanctions, of course, we were attacked on 9/11. According to Ali, we should simply have let that attack ride. So we were attacked. Big deal! Why respond? To respond is merely to invite further retaliation. Best to sit tight--and make cooing noises of appeasement.
And so,according to Ali, having decided to fight a war against an organization that had declared war on us five years previously, we were once again guilty of..."imposing violence on the Muslim world."
Now here we are, reverting to type--aggressing against Iraq. As for UN Resolutions 687 and 1441, let's forget them--as well as everything in between them. They're just meaningless pieces of paper signifying nothing, and the events between them can safely be relegated to the memory hole. As for Iraq's decades-long non-compliance with its post-war obligations? Well the obligations can hardly bind if we forget that the documents exist or the events took place. WMD proliferation? Ignore it; it'll go away. Secret missile deals with North Korea? Yawn. A history of genocide-by-WMD use? According to Edward Said, it was all Orientalist conspiracy-mongering: it never happened. Anyway, the point of conducting a foreign policy is not to protect your country or eliminate threats. It's to avoid antagonizing those over-sensitive Muslims.
OK, so Al Qaida, which declared war on us--twice, since we weren't paying attention the first time around--is currently in Iraq, fighting us, and terrorizing (and recruiting) the indigenous population. Nonetheless, our presence in Iraq (not theirs) is the cause of a bombing in London, even when Al Qaida itself takes explicit responsibility for the bombing.
I suppose Ali is right. If we declare unilateral surrender on all fronts in the war on terrorism, the bombings will surely stop. Of course at that point, to quote Al Qaida in Europe, Allah will have planted Al Qaida's feet firmly in what had hitherto been our ground. And who will Tariq Ali blame then? Guess.
I'm being facetious. But Tariq Ali means it. I think the message of Ali's article can best be presented as follows:
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait back in 1990, we should have allowed bin Laden to do the job of dislodging him. And had bin Laden then taken over Kuwait and used it as a base of operations, that would have been just fine. To do it ourselves was to impose our violence on the Muslim world.
In fact, we didn't let bin Laden dislodge Saddam. We imposed our violence on him and dislodged him ourselves. Having done so, of course, it was an imposition of violence to have imposed terms on his government. We should, after the war, simply have let him go his merry way--free, for instance, to develop WMD as he pleased. Had we simply ignored the issue of terms, we wouldn't have had to enforce them, and thus would not have had to impose sanctions (more violence). Not having imposed sanctions (or engaged in coercive inspections), we would thereby have avoided the 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001 terrorist attacks that came our way as a result of our intrusions into Muslim affairs. Of course, had Saddam Hussein used this opportunity to develop WMD, that consequence would have been perfectly acceptable in the Tariq Ali Universe. A nuclear armed Iraq? No big deal. Iraq with weaponized anthrax? Not a problem. Iraq with VX nerve gas? Not an imminent threat to anyone.
As a result of enforcing sanctions, of course, we were attacked on 9/11. According to Ali, we should simply have let that attack ride. So we were attacked. Big deal! Why respond? To respond is merely to invite further retaliation. Best to sit tight--and make cooing noises of appeasement.
And so,according to Ali, having decided to fight a war against an organization that had declared war on us five years previously, we were once again guilty of..."imposing violence on the Muslim world."
Now here we are, reverting to type--aggressing against Iraq. As for UN Resolutions 687 and 1441, let's forget them--as well as everything in between them. They're just meaningless pieces of paper signifying nothing, and the events between them can safely be relegated to the memory hole. As for Iraq's decades-long non-compliance with its post-war obligations? Well the obligations can hardly bind if we forget that the documents exist or the events took place. WMD proliferation? Ignore it; it'll go away. Secret missile deals with North Korea? Yawn. A history of genocide-by-WMD use? According to Edward Said, it was all Orientalist conspiracy-mongering: it never happened. Anyway, the point of conducting a foreign policy is not to protect your country or eliminate threats. It's to avoid antagonizing those over-sensitive Muslims.
OK, so Al Qaida, which declared war on us--twice, since we weren't paying attention the first time around--is currently in Iraq, fighting us, and terrorizing (and recruiting) the indigenous population. Nonetheless, our presence in Iraq (not theirs) is the cause of a bombing in London, even when Al Qaida itself takes explicit responsibility for the bombing.
I suppose Ali is right. If we declare unilateral surrender on all fronts in the war on terrorism, the bombings will surely stop. Of course at that point, to quote Al Qaida in Europe, Allah will have planted Al Qaida's feet firmly in what had hitherto been our ground. And who will Tariq Ali blame then? Guess.
Comments