Published by marco on
ZMag has 47 questions about the War in Afghanistan. The questions progress naturally, starting with “What is Islamic Fundamentalism?” (1) and proceeding from there. Of particular interest are “What is Terrorism?” (5), which leads to defining which nations are terrorist based on that criteria. “Is what the U.S. is doing consistent with a legal approach” (14) addresses the current vigilante approach the U.S. is taking:
<q>the answer is that the U.S. wishes to send a message and to establish a process. The message, as usual, is don’t mess with us. We have no compunction about wreaking havoc on the weak and desperate. The process, also not particularly original since Ronald Reagan and George Bush senior had similar aspirations, is to legitimate a “war on terrorism” as a lynchpin rationale for both domestic and international policy-making.</q>
Questions 15-20 discuss other nations’ support, bin Laden’s guilt and evidence and the U.S diplomacy toward Afghanistan prior to attack (or lack thereof). “But doesn’t the U.S. have the right of self-defense?” (22) asks if the way the U.S. is solving its problems is the way nations should act (and how is our solution any different than terrorism?). Question 24 talks about the U.S. Congress:
<q>…abdicating their constitutionally assigned responsibility to provide a check on the arbitrary power of the executive branch. To pass a resolution authorizing the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons” is essentially saying that Congress wants no voice in assessing evidence, determining the appropriate way to respond to that evidence, or even whether we will go to war against one or several dozen countries.</q>
“But aren’t U.S. food drops a sincere effort to help the people of Afghanistan?” (27) talks about U.S. “humanitarian” efforts, comparing the $324 Million of aid with the $40 Billion spent on the attack and detailing the true severity of the situation for the people of Afghanistan.
“How about increasing U.S. defense and military spending?” (32) explains:
<q>But does the U.S. need to spend not only $343 billion as in the year 2000, which was 69 percent greater than that of the next five highest nations combined (with Russia spending less than one-sixth what the United States does, and Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and Syria spending in total $14.4 billion combined and Iran accounting for 52 percent of this total)…</q>
“How about using racial profiling to counter terrorism in the United States?” (35) says:
<q>People’s fears are real and legitimate. But we must try to address those fears in ways that do not scapegoat and abuse Arabs or Muslims or anybody else.“</q>
“What is a “war on terrorism,” and why is it being elevated as the capstone of U. S. foreign policy?” (36) explains deeper reasons for current wholly illogical U.S. foreign policy and “But what about the role of oil in the current crisis?” (37) dispels rumors that oil interests are behind it all as “very far-fetched”. Questions (41) and (44) discuss real solutions to the problem of terrorism.