In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Stop Creating More.

Ezra says it perfectly, so I’m just going to quote him in full:

This really seems to be the difference between liberals and neoconservatives on foreign policy, doesn’t it? Neocons envision a near-static population of terrorists, and prescribe an aggressive policy of killing them in order to rid the world of terrorism. Liberals see a dynamic population of terrorists and prescribe broad policies meant to blunt their popular appeal and deprive them of public support. Neocons looks at the liberal prescription and say, essentially, “you’re not killing enough of them.” And liberals look at the Neocons and, aghast, say, “stop making so many more.”


19 thoughts on Stop Creating More.

  1. And the difference between liberals and neo-cons on the one hand, and sane people on the other, is that the sane don’t buy that The War on Terror has anything to do with terrorism.

  2. I almost wonder if manufacturing new enemies hasn’t been the neocons’ point all along — I mean, the USSR isn’t around anymore, Russia isn’t nearly as big or bad as they used to be, so we have to find someone to be in constant conflict with. If you’ve read the big long report the Project for the New American Century put out before the Iraq war started, it basically reads like the fantasy of a bunch of armchair soldiers who want the U.S. to be involved in near-constant global ass-kicking solely for its own sake.

    Constantly turning regular Arab Joes and Josephines into new armies of terrorists gives them the perfect excuse to a) spend lots of money on new toys for the military and b) scare gullible people into voting for them. They don’t really want to stop creating new terrorists for the same reason that they don’t actually want to stop abortions — because “solving” the problem would rob them of a big campaign issue to beat other people over the head with.

  3. The main point of contention here is that we disagree on what the “root causes” of terrorism are. You believe that if we left everyone alone terrorism would go away, and we do not.

  4. You believe that if we left everyone alone terrorism would go away, and we do not.

    I know this is a hard concept for blood-thirsty war mongers, but there are other options for stopping terrorism besides the death and displacement of millions of innocent people.

    Oh, and the whole “the Liberulz wanna cut ‘n run” speechifying died out with the 2004 election, Henry, you might want to look into some new propaganda.

  5. What a joke Henry’s comment was. In case you haven’t been paying attention, it’s the neocons, Henry, who are speaking in all these grandiose terms about a “War on Terror” as if terrorism could ever be completely eradicated from the earth. It’s damn dirty liberals like me who realize that terrorism won’t ever just up and “go away,” but if we are to fight it, and we should, we can either make the job easier on ourselves or make it harder. Torturing people who haven’t even been charged with a crime and randomly invading foreign countries just because we don’t like them fall into the “harder” column, yet it’s folks like you who insist we keep doing them. What gives?

  6. Neocons are “creating” terrorist? How do we know its not the terrorists who are creating neocons? Oh, that’s right; only one side possesses free will. White privilege indeed.

  7. The main point of contention here is that we disagree on what the “root causes” of terrorism are. You believe that if we left everyone alone terrorism would go away, and we do not.

    Henry’s view is a pretty common one among conservatives, at least the ones I know. They think that there is X number of bad people in the world, and if we can just get rid of all of the bad people, things would be fine.

    They never seem to notice that in their estimation, “bad people” are almost always minorities or foreigners. Personally, I would guess that there are just as many sociopathic graduates of Harvard Business School as there are running drugs in the streets of the South Bronx. Conservatives seem to think that poverty and crime are always related, and things like what happened at Enron aren’t “real” crimes, even though Enron’s crimes affected far more people than a drive-by shooting in the Bronx.

  8. They think that there is X number of bad people in the world, and if we can just get rid of all of the bad people, things would be fine.

    Actually, my point wasn’t in reference to any of that. I was speaking of the assumption that the prime reason that radical ideologies exist is as a response to abuses committed by the west. You believe that to be the case, and I do not.

    I believe that there are bad people in every society, race, class and whatever. This is largely because I believe that the vast majority of people (including rich white people, shock) are naturally swine unless corrective action is taken at some point.

    I don’t believe that poverty and crime are always related. We have had desperately poor people in this country since it was founded (and in every other society in all of history). It’s only in the past 50 years or so that we’ve had such a dramatic upswing in crime among the poor. Personally, I’d pick the War on Drugs as the main culprit.

    Henry, who are speaking in all these grandiose terms about a “War on Terror

    I would absolutely agree that “The War on Terror” is a poorly chosen euphemism.

  9. I was speaking of the assumption that the prime reason that radical ideologies exist is as a response to abuses committed by the west.

    It depends on which radical ideology you’re talking about. The Tamil Tigers have very little to do with abuses committed by the West. Al-Qaeda has a whole lot to do with abuses committed by the West given that the US funded the mujahideen as part of a proxy war with Russia in Afghanistan. Without that breeding ground, bin Laden wouldn’t be nearly the force he is today.

    Our troubles with radical Islamists in Iran can also be traced not just to Western but to specifically American meddling, from Kermit Roosevelt’s CIA-sponsored engineering of the overthrow of Mossadegh to the US backing of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

    Like or or not, our current troubles with al-Qaeda can be traced pretty directly back to actions that the US government took.

  10. Mnemosyne is beyond correct.
    i have to wonder why its NEVER a talking point that *WE* gave Iraq to Saddam, that *WE* started the war bin Laden is fighting now, that *WE* activly aided the formation of MULTIPLE tyrannys around the globe (as long as they were “opposed to communism…”)

    i love my country, or at least what it stands for. but i really REALLY have to hat what my country has been doing for.. well… actually for its entire existance.

    i wanna move to the Moon

  11. I believe that there are bad people in every society, race, class and whatever. This is largely because I believe that the vast majority of people (including rich white people, shock) are naturally swine unless corrective action is taken at some point.

    I’ve never liked this idea so many people seem to believe. It seems like a pre-justified excuse to be a bully, or a reason not to constructive with or care about others because you know, they’re bad.

  12. i have to wonder why its NEVER a talking point that *WE* gave Iraq to Saddam, that *WE* started the war bin Laden is fighting now, that *WE* activly aided the formation of MULTIPLE tyrannys around the globe (as long as they were “opposed to communism…”)

    Really? Never a talking point? Odd then that those very same points are common knowledge to anyone who has ever had a discussion about middle eastern politics. Is there anyone in America who isn’t aware that we gave training, money and weapons to the muj in Afghanistan? Or that we propped up dictatorships during the cold war? I’m pretty sure your message is getting out.

    My point was not to say that western powers haven’t exacerbated the situation through incompetence. The CIA is famous for it’s bumbling in the cold war era. My point is that I don’t believe jihad exists simply because we have offended or oppressed muslims. Jihad exists regardless of what we have done. Most of our mistakes, such as being involved with Saddam or Bin Laden, come not from working to oppress muslims but from not taking them seriously and recognizing the potential threat.

    This is probably something we’re just not going to agree on.

  13. I think this argument only works for nationalist-specific groups that were formed, ie TAMILs, or in Puerto Rico, Lebanon, or the Palestinian territories.
    When we’re talking about international networks like alqaeda it doesn’t work so well. Binladen will appropriate the language of “fighting opression” in attempt to gain support, but AQ are based on an incredibly fundamentalist and abstract ideology that has little to do with that, and always has. When AQ formed as a response to building the American bases in Saudi Arabia, it wasn’t because that base was being used to bomb Iraqis, but because that base was being occupied by people that weren’t “clean” enough, religiously. The vast majority of the victims of AQ terrorism have been Muslims (and an extremely large number of them have been Iraqis.)

  14. Is there anyone in America who isn’t aware that we gave training, money and weapons to the muj in Afghanistan? Or that we propped up dictatorships during the cold war? I’m pretty sure your message is getting out.

    Wasn’t there apoll not to long ago that said that something like 30% of americans actually thought that they actually found WMDs.

    And McCain just said that he thinks Iran and AlQaeda are in cahoots.

    So I really wouldn’t give everyone too much credit.

  15. How the fuck do these people manage to be wrong about everything—EVERYTHING!—and still get listened to and make policy?

  16. Neocons looks at the liberal prescription and say, essentially, “you’re not killing enough of them.” And liberals look at the Neocons and, aghast, say, “stop making so many more.”

    I’m not too sure of that. Hillary’s a liberal and she voted for the war.

  17. Neocons looks at the liberal prescription and say, essentially, “you’re not killing enough of them.” And liberals look at the Neocons and, aghast, say, “stop making so many more.”

    As in most things, I’d say the truth is kind of in the middle. I don’t think anyone who isn’t completely detached from reality would argue that US policy hasn’t created some blowback (not that we don’t have plenty of people who are that detached from the president on down). We put troops in someone else’s backyards, shoot their cousins, and fund the worst amongst them to use as pawns and some people are going to look for payback.

    At the same time, I feel like the belief that if we just left everyone alone they’d leave us alone is a bit naive. Our leaders are rarely anything other than monsters, why on earth should we expect someone else’s to be any different. Isolationist policy opens you up to threats just as much as interventionist policy does.

    The problem is that both sides want very badly to believe in easy solutions, in black-and-white answers that Joe or Jane Sixpack can easily digest and understand. We want to be able to change policy and suddenly solve our problems, we crave simple outcomes. But that isn’t the world. There is no single root cause to terrorism, its a complex problem that requires complex answers. Ultimately, it requires both sides to get together and work their solutions. We need to make fewer enemies abroad AND we need to quietly remove those that develop anyway.

Comments are currently closed.