NYTimes.com Article: This Is a Religious War

[Roger Baker]

Don Laird's post of the NYT piece that proposed that this was a religious war is
interesting because I suspect that it is largely true. 

On the US good-patriotic-American side we have a new religious crusade against 
the forces of evil that threaten those who do not wave the flag. 

Bush makes this very plain; "President George Bush said yesterday that the 
eradication of global terrorism was "our calling". He added: "Now is the time 
to draw the line in the sand against the evil ones."



On the other side of this debate or war or whatever, we have the Arab world 
as seen through al-Jazeera, which I suppose is as near as you get to the 
prevailing satellite and web media of the modern Arab world. Here's the link. 

http://www.al-jazeera.net/special_coverages/war_against_terrorism/

I can't read Arabic, but I do understand the language of Muslims burning 
flags and US bombers. I suspect that since al-Jazeera gives bin Laden coverage but 
since the Bush administration has declined the invitation to submit the 
US side to al-Jazeera for balance, the end result is necessarily to make bin 
Laden's point of view prevail by comparison in influencing mainstream Arabs.
Or maybe the CIA doesn't have any spare agents to respond on al-Jazeera?

If this is a religious war, and assuming our religion side represents freedom 
and modernity as Sullivan claims, then our religious foe is an Islamic sect 
from hell cultured and nutured by billions in CIA support for the most militant 
Islamic factions to be found in Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

They may not like it when we bring in the grandson of the king and try to have 
him rule from the ruins of Kabul. The guys coming across the border from Pakistan 
with guns may not not be feminists and may not want US troops defending a feminist 
government in coalition with the Uzbeks, the brutal Pashtun-hating Tajic warlords 
of the north, and whomever we can manage to assemble and announce as the new rulers 
for our side in Bush's religious war, retitled "Enduring Freedom".

In reality the religious basis for our side in this war, once you strip away all 
the layers of flags, closely resembles US corporate nationalism without much regard 
for world opinion, or else we would call in the United Nations. The first guys 
to show up in the cporporate welfare line were the airlines, but everywhere the 
are other corporate victims of terrorism facing sagging sales and profits that also 
need our help.

As soon as these corporate victims of terror get paid off, we can deal with propping 
up whatever coalition of Afghans we can convince to stay in Kabul with our "enduring 
freedom" of military protection. 

If there is any cash left over, then we must next consider the cost of winning hearts 
and minds of the Pakistani's keeping Pakistan's nuclear domino from toppling, as 
described below in today's New York Times. 

Along with the priviledge of domestic security for the home base of our global 
empire -- goes a responsibility of paying for the military side of the process.
We have British troops fighting by our side, but the true test is to see how many
other countries are willing to adopt Bush's side in this new religious crusade 
against evil:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,567395,00.html

"President George Bush said yesterday that the eradication of global terrorism was 
"our calling". He added: "Now is the time to draw the line in the sand against the 
evil ones." However, there were signs of uneasiness from the allies at the White House's 
apparent return to the boundless bellicosity of the early days of the crisis. Nato 
insisted yesterday that it would need more evidence before it could support attacks 
anywhere other than Afghanistan. The secretary general, Lord Robertson, said Nato's 
endorsement for anti-terrorist action was based on "dealing with those connected with 
and responsible for the attacks of September 11"..."

Then when we make the world safe for global expansion, we can THEN go on to win the 
drug war, house the homeless, feed our huddled teeming masses, free from prison those 
yearning to breathe free, and all that stuff in the fine print on the goddam Statue of 
motherfuckin' Liberty.

Meanwhile, beam me up, please.  -- Roger



          *******************************************************


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/11/opinion/11HUSS.html


Can Pakistan's Leader Hold On?


By MUSHAHID HUSSAIN


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan

With Pakistan's pro-Taliban policy buried in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, 
President Pervez Musharraf has struggled to put Pakistan back on track and restore the 
badly bruised relationship with the United States. Joining the antiterrorist coalition 
may prove to be a fateful choice, one that opens onto a future of more difficult 
choices...

In this campaign against terrorism, the prospects for Pakistan are as hazardous as 
those for Afghanistan. Pakistan's real nightmare concerns the war's aftermath. Once 
the Americans are done with Afghanistan and depart, will Pakistan again be left to 
clear the debris? Refugees and a sprawling culture of Kalashnikovs, narcotics, sectarian 
terrorism: all these were the unwelcome gifts of the last Pakistani-American effort 
in Afghanistan...

Serving as the frontline state from 1979 to 1989, Pakistan helped engineer an American 
triumph in the last battle of the cold war. But with the mission accomplished, the 
United States left in an unseemly hurry. The 1990 sanctions — intended to prevent Pakistan 
from acquiring a nuclear capability — were the parting kick. Mr. Musharraf hopes, as 
do most Pakistanis, that America's rediscovery of Pakistan will be different, resulting 
in a resilient relationship...

Pakistan's change of direction needs sustained international support if the country is 
to be an effective defender of Muslim moderation. The American-led coalition can help 
in various ways: by providing economic relief, particularly a debt write-off, to help 
stabilize the country; by brokering a compromise with India over Kashmir; and by holding 
Mr. Musharraf to his promise of elections...

Mushahid Hussain, a former editor and legislator, was Pakistan's information minister 
from 1997 to 1999.