Against Fear

Elvis Costello, discussing his new release:

"It’s more against fear than it is against war. ’Cause it’s the fear that allows the war to happen. And that idea is going through the record."

Via Jim Henley at High Clearing.

A series of connected thoughts:

Here's Why I Believed That Con Man

As the flip side of stupid blog triumphalism about the Killian memos (guys, it's just the same old right-wing dirty tricks - the internet just let you get played faster), there is this "here's why I was wrong about Iraq" thing going around among liberal hawks, most prominently here and here. (It's the flip side because just as blogs were irrelevant to the fact of Rove's dirty trick, they were irrelevant to the debate about going to war. What debate?)

When you come down to it, the liberal hawks just got conned. After someone cons you, you can look back to come up with a dozen insights about how they did it and recognize the red flags that should have tipped you off. But that's irrelevant, too. A con man will always play on your own worst instincts and your vulnerabilities, whatever they are. The only way to avoid getting taken in the future is to ask two questions: Does what this person propose match what I know about them as a person? and What's in it for them? Any intelligent person who had stuck to those two questions could have avoided getting suckered by BushCo on Iraq.

Just Because I'm Wrong Doesn't Make You Right

Having said that, there is one particular logical trap that the formerly pro-Iraq-war people seem to have fallen into.
Matt Yglesias:

[W]e were both bouncing around Harvard hearing all sorts of factually or logically deficient anti-war arguments. As this was the immediate context of our lives, it tended to harden our views in the opposite direction -- "look at all these silly anti-war people!"

Ezra Klein:

... I lived in Santa Cruz, home of reflexive dovishness and factually incorrect tirades. So I became pro-war.

Both Matt and Ezra got so caught up in the debate that they believed that if one posited A and the other side not-A, that anything that undermined the not-A position strengthened the A position. It doesn't. Both sides' arguments can be wrong.

It Hasn't Rained For a Few Days, So The Weatherman Must Be Doing a Good Job

One other terrorism-related fallacy: There is a tendency on the part of some to say, in connection with things like the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Iraq, that Bush's policies must be working to keep us safe, because there hasn't been another major jihadi terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11 (assuming for argument's sake the anthrax attacks were not by jihadis). This is just poor analysis and it reveals a critical lack of understanding of what the 9/11 attacks were all about.

Many Americans assume that bin Laden is just a malevolent demon who seeks to kill as many Americans as possible for siding with the Jews and for propping up the Middle Eastern regimes that prevent him from restoring the Caliphate. (Republican rhetoric of confronting the "evildoers" has gone a long way to reinforcing that belief.) But bin Laden's plan is much more rational than that; he didn't just strike in blind hatred. Just because he's a fanatic doesn't mean he's stupid. The strategic goal of 9/11 was to inflame popular opinion in the Middle East and among Muslims worldwide against the United States and their allies in the Middle East and in favor of the jihadis, in aid of the objective of weakening and toppling a major government, preferably Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was exploiting two facts: (1) the belief in the Middle East that the United States is nearly omnipotent and (2) the deep-seated Arab sense of inferiority. Since everybody in the region believes at some level of consciousness that the Americans are almost infinitely powerful, the very success of the 9/11 attack could be offered as proof that bin Laden's mission was divinely inspired. And the success of the attack offered a powerfully cathartic experience for people who have felt like they are at the mercy of the whims of this (supposedly) nearly omnipotent power. Thus, bin Laden drew support to his cause, and then he defined the regimes the U.S. is allied with as his enemies.

But it was the American reaction that really clinched things in bin Laden's favor. Since the U.S. was viewed with such suspicion and mistrust, people in the region would be extra vigilant against any sign of American overreaching. Going into Afganhistan to rout the Taliban was clearly directly related to the 9/11 attacks and eliminated a real, ongoing threat. If other American military action was similarly narrowly aimed and related to the attacks, then the people of the region could understand and accept it. Instead, Bush decided - for whatever reasons - to invade a country with no significant connection to terrorism and no connection whatsoever to the 9/11 attacks. Naturally, people around the world were outraged, but for a majority of Americans consumed with a desire to hit someone, such a reaction just seemed like anti-Americanism. (Defined as "opposing anything Americans want.") When Bush gambled and lost on the Iraq adventure, it was bin Laden who really hit the jackpot.

Viewed that way, the 9/11 attacks were a stunning success, the effects of which are still playing out across the world. Why haven't there been any additional attacks? Because they're unnecessary. If you conceive of the political struggle being waged as a chemical reaction which starts in Washington, D.C. and produces its products in Baghdad, Riyadh, Islamabad, Kabul and Tehran, then bin Laden doesn't need to dump any more energy into that system. He's already added the ingredients, and shaken up the tube. He's waiting to see what precipitates out.

Also, keep in mind that terrorism is not military action. It is not force applied in order to defeat an enemy directly, and to take and hold territory. Instead, it is political theater by murder, a show designed to illustrate the weakness and vulnerability of the attacked, in order to cause a certain political reaction. Bin Laden got incredibly lucky on 9/11. Even his own people probably didn't expect the attacks would come off so precisely, and on camera, and spectacularly ending in the collapse of the towers and the exodus of people from Manhattan. With that as Act I, there is a real danger that an Act II which is not as good will undercut the quality of the play. Threats of future attacks would be useful, and those threats have waxed and waned. But only a much more spectacular attack - specifically, a nuke - would fit the criteria for massive, spectacular destruction that would seem almost Biblical in scope.

Even with that cheery prospect in mind, we can do things to undercut the damage that bin Laden and his unwitting dupe Bush have inflicted. The first thing, of course, is to get rid of the dupe, both because he is either a fantasist or captured by fantasists, and because he now represents the part of America that people around the world hate. By repudiating Bush's blunder's, we can take the first step toward projecting the message that the United States has rejected his cowboyism and is truly ready to work to address the bundle of problems that intersect the threat against the U.S. But if Bush stays, there is no telling what he will do, or what our enemies will do to further advance their aims.

Comments

[Hal]

Thank "Bob" you didn't die the other day.

[Jeff]

When Mister Bush made his case for war, he presented very detailed information. Saddam Hussein had five hundred tons of mustards gas, five hundred tons of sarin and twenty five thousand liters of anthrax. When politicians lie they tend not to use such specific quantities. So I believed him. But that didn't mean I supported the war. If the U.S. could contain the Soviets for fifty years, then surely it could do the same to Iraq.

As a result of Mister Bush's sabre rattling, weapons inspectors were allowed back in the country. They chased U.S. intelligence from site to site. At each location they found nothing. Suddenly those specific quantities became more abstract. At this point I called B.S. The weapons programs weren't there. The delivery systems weren't there. Mobile weapons labs? Gimme a break. At this point if you were still buying into the WMD justification for war, then your critical thinking was shutdown. I call it the post-9/11 menopause.

Supporting the war wasn't my crime. Even when I believed Hussein had weapons, I didn't support conflict when containment would have done just fine. No. My crime was taking an eye off al Qaeda. Since then I've been made up for lost time with persistent letters to my representatives. Unfortunately, I can't even get them to say "Osama bin Laden." I write lengthy papers on al Qaeda and they still respond, "Iraq, Iraq, Iraq..."

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"and is truly ready to work to address the bundle of problems that intersect the threat against the U.S. But if Bush stays, there is no telling what he will do, or what our enemies will do to further advance their aims."

Non-substantive Question. Isn't it a bit odd to argue that Bin Laden hasn't attacked the US again because it doesn't have to (it got what it wants) and then make ominous statements about what our enemies will do? According to your theory Bush is giving bin Laden what he wants so there will be no future attack on American soil. Great, Bush is keeping us safe! Right?

Substantive Question: Which bundle of problems and how ought we address them?

[Jeff]

/me introduces Sebastion to the 1200++ killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and asks him to reconsider his "safe" conclusion.

[LennyZ]

Check out the article in the Scotsman blogged here: http://cardsboard.blogspot.com/

[Mithras]

Holsclaw-
Isn't it a bit odd to argue that Bin Laden hasn't attacked the US again because it doesn't have to (it got what it wants) and then make ominous statements about what our enemies will do?

Yes, it would be, if that were my argument. I actually argued that bin Laden need not attack us again for now because he is still evaluating the outcome of 9/11.

Side note, just by the way: When I say bin Laden, I am referencing the whole jihadi cult. Bin Laden is replaceable.

Which bundle of problems and how ought we address them?

I should have said "bundles": The Arab inferiority complex, persistent effects of past colonialism in the middle east region, Israel/Palestine, nuclear proliferation, American tone-deafness about Islam, and the unstable position of moderate reformers in the middle east, just off the top of my (hungover) head. How to address them? Sensitively. (A term I use advisedly.) Number 1 priority: convince the moderates in the region we're on their side. Do that by stop talking and acting like all our problems can be solved by using enough force. Publicly acknowledge that while military action is necessary against violent extremists, at best it just keeps the lid on while the pot continues to boil. To make actual progress against extremism requires the active cooperation and assistance of the people of the countries where extremists breed, and the United States wants to partner with them to make both their and our lives better. And then, actually do things to make them believe it.