Vance's CALL resources page | esl_home index
Return to Papyrus News Archive Main Page
Translate this page - http://world.altavista.com/ | Gloss this page - http://www.voycabulary.com/

Papyrus News
Q&A on the war against terrorism

December 13, 2001: This message was distributed by Papyrus News. Feel free to forward this message to others, preferably with this introduction. For info on Papyrus News, including how to (un)subscribe or access archives, see <http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/papyrus-news.html>.

In response to popular demand...

1. The US has done so many bad things in the world (in Vietnam, Central America, etc.) How can it be trusted now?

US imperialism was equally aggressive in the first half of the century, yet it was still justified in going to war against the Axis countries in World War II. Each fight has to be judged on its own merit. I was a national leader in the movement against US intervention in Central America, but just because I led anti-war protests in the 1980s doesn't mean that I shouldn't back US war efforts today. Indeed, it is the special duty of the left to support to support this war, just as it supported the international war against fascism in the 1940s.

2. And US sanctions are killing so many in Iraq.

Sanctions against Iraq were backed by the United Nations due to Iraq's acts of aggression, including the use of chemical weapons against its own citizens and those of its neighbors. Sanctions continue to be supported, actively or passively, by the nations of the world. The US has no borders with Iraq. If Iraq's neighbors, or the Arab League, or the European Union wanted to end sanctions, they could do so immediately. As for starvation, countries in the region with far lower per-capita incomes (even while sanctions were at their strictest), such as Syria, do not experience starvation. Similarly, regions of Iraq that are not controlled by Hussein but have also experienced sanctions, such as the northern Kurdish zone have not experienced mass death due to starvation or lack of medicine either. Death in Iraq has been caused by Hussein's hording of Iraq's resources, rather than by sanctions. Sanctions may or may not have been politically effective, but they are morally justifiable against a regime which to this day works to get weapons of mass destruction to terrorize its citizens and neighbors. The more difficult question is, if sanctions aren't working, what then should be done? Can Iraq be allowed to fully develop nuclear and biological weapons? Mutual deterrence has worked in the past to keep nuclear powers from destroying each other. But, in the age of international terrorism, can mutual deterrence keep Iraq from surreptitiously passing nuclear bombs (or bomb-making material) to terrorist groups if Hussein thought he could get away with it?

3. Didn't the US earlier support Hussein and Bin Laden?

Yes it did--and that's one of the aspects of US foreign policy that deserves severe criticism. But it doesn't change the nature of the conflict now.

4. And what about the Mideast conflict?

The Palestinians have suffered too long (due in no small part to the political decisions they've made and their own lack of good leadership). In any case, the battle against terrorism can only help clear the way for a fair and just settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Does anybody think that Al Qaeda's actions or the suicide bombings of Hamas and Islamic Jihad accomplish anything positive toward resolution of the conflict?

5. A billion people support Islam. How can you label it terrorist?

I would never label Islam terrorist. I support the best of all religious traditions. What I oppose is the reactionary political movement of "radical Islam", and especially its most virulent wing which has adopted violence and terrorism to try to impose its ideology. I similarly oppose the (American, right-wing) Christian Coalition and the (terrorist) Jewish Defense League. However, of these various extremist movements, radical Islam is the one that is currently the larger international threat to world peace and security, as witnessed not only by the September 11 attacks but also by events of the past decade in Algeria, Egypt, etc.

6. Noam Chomsky sees things completely differently.

Hey, this was the guy who defended the Pol Pot regime against what he called false accusations that the Khmer Rouge was committing mass murder. That's what happens when you get into a mindset of automatically supporting anybody the US is against. This brings me back to point number 1 above -- US aggression should be criticized (as in Vietnam and Central America); US war against fascism and reactionary terrorism should be supported (as in World War II and now), no matter what Chomsky thinks.

Mark Warschauer



Use the navigator at the top of this page or your browser's BACK button to return to a previous page

For comments, suggestions, or further information on this site, contact Vance Stevens, webmaster. Regarding content of Papyrus-News, contact Mark Warschauer.

Last updated: December 14, 2001 in Hot Metal Pro 6.0