"Power of Nightmares"
On the pro-Bush sites I read and on those who support and understand the War on Islamists, a lot of scorn has been heaped on the upcoming BBC2 three-part documentary series on "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear."
While much of the coverage centers on the claims aboud "dirty bombs" being not really that scary, what I read about the rest of the series suggests that the facts it presents can be considered independent of the obvious (anti-U.S. policies) spin that's being put on them by the film's creator.
This article is an extensive look at the project. Since it's "The Guardian," the paper's own rabid anti-American bias gets slathered onto the program's own slant. You'll have to endure Chomsky gospel readings like "The historian Linda Colley adds: 'States and their rulers expect to monopolise violence, and that is why they react so virulently to terrorism.' " Yes, Linda, it's only "states and their rulers" that really get worked up over terrorism. The American people, as a whole, just gave a collective shrug of unconcern on Sept. 12, 2001.
But this passage strikes me as essentially correct:
Al Qaida aspired to be the umbrella group for Islamist Terror, the Ford Foundation of jihad. It funded operations, advised killers, arranged meetings. But it is not the sole or even now the major player in that movement, which is America's sworn enemy. That's why I think Bush was more correct, in his inariculare way, when he said he's not too worried about Osama bin Laden these days, than he was when he made OBL the sole focus of the U.S. effort.
Kerry, on the other hand, either wants to slam the president for going soft on al Qaida (typical political tactic, but within bounds) or else he really does think that the only justified reaction to 9/11 was to bring Osama to justice. Get bin Laden and it ends. In this case, that's dead wrong, but I'm afraid that deep down in his heart that's what John Kerry wants. He and his backers are so eager to move on from this uncomfortable condition of being "at war" with a people they'd much rather huddle with under the mantle of diversity, and commiserate with over the atrocities of Israel.
I also was interested in this line from the Guardian piece.
Terrorism, by definition, depends on an element of bluff.
Well, then, according to the Duelfer Report, Saddam Hussein had all the makings of a terrorist, since bluff was the heart of his game.
And I can't help but smile as I note the "Guardian" writers' contortions in drawing up the history of the word "terrorism," which they rightly connect with the French Revolution. "[T]he word terrorism was actually coined to describe the strategy of a government, the authoritarian French revolutionary regime of the 1790s [which] began to assassinate politicians and then members of the public during the 19th century." Except for the "19th century" howler, that's basically right. But the radical puritan politics of the Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety hew a lot more closely to the "Guardian's" than they do to Dubya's.
While much of the coverage centers on the claims aboud "dirty bombs" being not really that scary, what I read about the rest of the series suggests that the facts it presents can be considered independent of the obvious (anti-U.S. policies) spin that's being put on them by the film's creator.
This article is an extensive look at the project. Since it's "The Guardian," the paper's own rabid anti-American bias gets slathered onto the program's own slant. You'll have to endure Chomsky gospel readings like "The historian Linda Colley adds: 'States and their rulers expect to monopolise violence, and that is why they react so virulently to terrorism.' " Yes, Linda, it's only "states and their rulers" that really get worked up over terrorism. The American people, as a whole, just gave a collective shrug of unconcern on Sept. 12, 2001.
But this passage strikes me as essentially correct:
The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells". It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence.
Al Qaida aspired to be the umbrella group for Islamist Terror, the Ford Foundation of jihad. It funded operations, advised killers, arranged meetings. But it is not the sole or even now the major player in that movement, which is America's sworn enemy. That's why I think Bush was more correct, in his inariculare way, when he said he's not too worried about Osama bin Laden these days, than he was when he made OBL the sole focus of the U.S. effort.
Kerry, on the other hand, either wants to slam the president for going soft on al Qaida (typical political tactic, but within bounds) or else he really does think that the only justified reaction to 9/11 was to bring Osama to justice. Get bin Laden and it ends. In this case, that's dead wrong, but I'm afraid that deep down in his heart that's what John Kerry wants. He and his backers are so eager to move on from this uncomfortable condition of being "at war" with a people they'd much rather huddle with under the mantle of diversity, and commiserate with over the atrocities of Israel.
I also was interested in this line from the Guardian piece.
Terrorism, by definition, depends on an element of bluff.
Well, then, according to the Duelfer Report, Saddam Hussein had all the makings of a terrorist, since bluff was the heart of his game.
And I can't help but smile as I note the "Guardian" writers' contortions in drawing up the history of the word "terrorism," which they rightly connect with the French Revolution. "[T]he word terrorism was actually coined to describe the strategy of a government, the authoritarian French revolutionary regime of the 1790s [which] began to assassinate politicians and then members of the public during the 19th century." Except for the "19th century" howler, that's basically right. But the radical puritan politics of the Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety hew a lot more closely to the "Guardian's" than they do to Dubya's.
Labels: Guardian, Power of Nightmares, terrorism
