(Disclaimer: This post was triggered while reading Longitudes and Attitudes. Almost all my quotes come from that book, no doubt it may seem highly biased. The whole point of this post is not to justify terrorism, please do not get me wrong on that. But I am against the way we have tackled it, a.k.a foreign policy. )
Imagine a world where 9/11 never happened. Hard to do so? Precisely. The aftermath of 9/11 has terrorized every individual so much about the potential attacks on mankind, that we have lost hindsight of a less terror filled world (we have never had a terror free world). However, one may ask if it was more so the terror or the reaction that followed the attacks, that is responsible for said behavior. There is no denying that post 9/11, the world has changed, for better or for worse. The War on Terror was an immediate answer to the attack on capitalism on the so-called capitalist guru of the world. Unnecessary was it- no one asks anymore because where lies the point in questioning itself? A lot of us after viewing a rather rash and harsh decision by the United States of America, said to ourselves - "This is the start of World War III." Ever since, terrorist attacks have become more prominent in the world. Here is where things are wrong though- we are in the middle of a war but all of us, except those soldiers fighting for vanity and their families worried if they will ever come back home, lead a normal life. That initial pizzazz to fight for what had been destroyed is gone. Don't deny it! It really isn't there anymore. Thomas L. Friedman, in his book Longitudes and Attitudes- Exploring the World After September 11, partly a collection of his articles in the New York Times, actually went ahead and pronounced it as World War III. "The people who planned Tuesday's bombings combined world-class evil with world- class genius to devastating effect.And unless we are ready to put our best minds to work combating them- the World War III Manhattan project- in an equally daring, unconventional, and unremitting fashion, we're in trouble. Because while this may have been the first major battle of World War III, it may be the last one that involves only conventional nonnuclear weapons." (World War III, September 13, 2001).
What has prevented this war from escalating into World War III? Because we are not in the middle of World War III- if we were, we would all be choosing sides, unprovoked, (though in a subtle way we are), enlisting citizens in the army everyday, building up our weapons, marching off to some foreign land to kill, and most of all forming collaborations and collaterals that will fight with us. No one country would be free to sleep. It is only the US that is involved in such a war with a little help from UK and a couple more countries, but nothing as serious to call it World War III. You remember how World War I and World War II were (or at least you have been educated about it). Then how can we call this the third one, when it lacks intensity as them? We are not fighting global terrorism, we are fighting terrorism where our interests are being threatened. Now is that biased or what? The problem with our war today is that its tag line has become - It's our way or the highway. And even worse, is that it has become a war on religion. How much ever we deny that we are not against Islam, just against radical fundamentalists that have marred Islam, it sure does look like one. The Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, roughly about a month back made a highly welcome comment - "Terrorism has no religion." While some people might disagree with this, I highly support his point of view. On the other hand, during the Republican debates at Drake University, Iowa, Presidential candidate and former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Guiliani said- "4 democratic debates not a single democratic candidate said the word "Radical Islamism". Now that is taking political correctness to an extreme." Is it really extreme political correctness? At a time when we have to work more closely with the Islamic world, how can we make such a statement? In his article, Smoking or Nonsmoking, published on September 14, 2001, Friedman writes, "To not retaliate ferociously for this attack on our people is only to invite a worse attack tomorrow and an endless war with terrorists. But to retaliate in a way that doesn't distinguish between those who pray to a God of Hate and those who pray to the same God we do is to invite an endless war between civilizations- a war that will land us all in the smoking section. " It is hard to distinguish the non smoking and smoking section now. To have associated this war with religion was wrong in the first place. Not surprisingly, there is no looking back.
We started the war first as a reaction to the atrocity New York City bore on that fatal morning of September 11th. Gradually it progressed to being the War on Terror, and then it became towards helping authoritarian nations build a democracy. Sound familiar? Yes, the whole idea behind ousting Communism was to bring down the Iron Wall built by the Soviets. Cold war we called it then. History books have often expressed awe as to how it never escalated into a nuclear war. Today we are just waiting when it does, cause we know it will very soon happen. Friedman writes, "Osama bin Laden- he destroyed much, he built nothing. His lasting impact was like a footprint in the desert." ( Bush to Bin Laden, October 12, 2001). Reality check, we haven't done anything significant either. Afghanistan- we claimed victory there. Bull shit. Hamid Karzai is an utter failure. We always station people in "democratic power" who we believe will side with us no matter what. If you don't believe this, go back and check what happened with Iran and yes Bin Laden, at one point of time, was funded by us. The Taliban is regaining strength in Afghanistan. All those lives lost in the desert to search for a cave man- gone in vain. We haven't built anything there that is substantial. That democracy we were so proud of over there is going down the drains. Iraq- that ball game is an open book. We can't do a darn thing to instate a democratic government. We went in thinking that everything could be solved once Saddam Hussein was executed and if we found those non-existent Weapons of Mass Destructions, things would be hunky dory again. Wrong!!! The War on What? echoes this thought perfectly- " Is America's war on terrorism going to become a war against democracy? " (May 8, 2002). During the Cold war we supported dictators who promised us various things, once they were in the government they became what they were meant to be- dictators. We are doing nothing different today. President Pervez Musharraf is a dictator, there is no denying that. Add onto that he is a General of the Army too. We never asked him to step down from the post of the General until the Sharif threat returned after Supreme Court said former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was wrongfully sent to exile and could come back to the country. Lo and behold, Musharraf steps down as General and lets exiled Benazir Bhutto to come back to Pakistan too; pressurized to do so by none other than the United States of America. Don't be fooled. The Mullahs and Taliban are gaining strength in Pakistan too. Wait for a while until the so-called liberal theocratic state goes back to the tough regimes of the Taliban. We fight for human rights everywhere else, except for the Arab states cause we know that it will stop flow of oil. Same logic why we couldn't say a thing against Hugo Chavez when he called President Bush - "A devil" at the United Nations, same reason we haven't done anything against Fidel Castro cause we know then Florida will never see the dawn of day ever again.
If it still isn't evident, we are getting isolated by the day. We are not the world, we need to realize that. Someone once commented as to why the President of the World Bank should be nominated by USA. Why should anyone think of New York City when the UN comes into question and not Geneva? Our allies, and not our foes, are scared of us. Friedman reports in The End of NATO that Brussels, NATO is buzzing with one issue and one alone- that the US has become way too technologically advanced to fight its war on its own, thus forgetting its allies. This is what has happened. We have become over-confident of our strength. We are not in the middle of World War III, we are in the middle of a war between USA and the Muslim world. "My fellow Americans, I hate to say this, but except for the good old Brits, we're all alone. And at the end of the day, it's U.S. and British troops who will have to go in, on the ground, and eliminate bin Laden."( Thomas Friedman,We Are All Alone, October 26,2001). We need a miracle to get us out of this mess. I don't believe in miracles. No amount of diplomacy is going to solve the farce we have created in the world. Something needs to be done....soon...
~Shreya
Imagine a world where 9/11 never happened. Hard to do so? Precisely. The aftermath of 9/11 has terrorized every individual so much about the potential attacks on mankind, that we have lost hindsight of a less terror filled world (we have never had a terror free world). However, one may ask if it was more so the terror or the reaction that followed the attacks, that is responsible for said behavior. There is no denying that post 9/11, the world has changed, for better or for worse. The War on Terror was an immediate answer to the attack on capitalism on the so-called capitalist guru of the world. Unnecessary was it- no one asks anymore because where lies the point in questioning itself? A lot of us after viewing a rather rash and harsh decision by the United States of America, said to ourselves - "This is the start of World War III." Ever since, terrorist attacks have become more prominent in the world. Here is where things are wrong though- we are in the middle of a war but all of us, except those soldiers fighting for vanity and their families worried if they will ever come back home, lead a normal life. That initial pizzazz to fight for what had been destroyed is gone. Don't deny it! It really isn't there anymore. Thomas L. Friedman, in his book Longitudes and Attitudes- Exploring the World After September 11, partly a collection of his articles in the New York Times, actually went ahead and pronounced it as World War III. "The people who planned Tuesday's bombings combined world-class evil with world- class genius to devastating effect.And unless we are ready to put our best minds to work combating them- the World War III Manhattan project- in an equally daring, unconventional, and unremitting fashion, we're in trouble. Because while this may have been the first major battle of World War III, it may be the last one that involves only conventional nonnuclear weapons." (World War III, September 13, 2001).
What has prevented this war from escalating into World War III? Because we are not in the middle of World War III- if we were, we would all be choosing sides, unprovoked, (though in a subtle way we are), enlisting citizens in the army everyday, building up our weapons, marching off to some foreign land to kill, and most of all forming collaborations and collaterals that will fight with us. No one country would be free to sleep. It is only the US that is involved in such a war with a little help from UK and a couple more countries, but nothing as serious to call it World War III. You remember how World War I and World War II were (or at least you have been educated about it). Then how can we call this the third one, when it lacks intensity as them? We are not fighting global terrorism, we are fighting terrorism where our interests are being threatened. Now is that biased or what? The problem with our war today is that its tag line has become - It's our way or the highway. And even worse, is that it has become a war on religion. How much ever we deny that we are not against Islam, just against radical fundamentalists that have marred Islam, it sure does look like one. The Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, roughly about a month back made a highly welcome comment - "Terrorism has no religion." While some people might disagree with this, I highly support his point of view. On the other hand, during the Republican debates at Drake University, Iowa, Presidential candidate and former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Guiliani said- "4 democratic debates not a single democratic candidate said the word "Radical Islamism". Now that is taking political correctness to an extreme." Is it really extreme political correctness? At a time when we have to work more closely with the Islamic world, how can we make such a statement? In his article, Smoking or Nonsmoking, published on September 14, 2001, Friedman writes, "To not retaliate ferociously for this attack on our people is only to invite a worse attack tomorrow and an endless war with terrorists. But to retaliate in a way that doesn't distinguish between those who pray to a God of Hate and those who pray to the same God we do is to invite an endless war between civilizations- a war that will land us all in the smoking section. " It is hard to distinguish the non smoking and smoking section now. To have associated this war with religion was wrong in the first place. Not surprisingly, there is no looking back.
We started the war first as a reaction to the atrocity New York City bore on that fatal morning of September 11th. Gradually it progressed to being the War on Terror, and then it became towards helping authoritarian nations build a democracy. Sound familiar? Yes, the whole idea behind ousting Communism was to bring down the Iron Wall built by the Soviets. Cold war we called it then. History books have often expressed awe as to how it never escalated into a nuclear war. Today we are just waiting when it does, cause we know it will very soon happen. Friedman writes, "Osama bin Laden- he destroyed much, he built nothing. His lasting impact was like a footprint in the desert." ( Bush to Bin Laden, October 12, 2001). Reality check, we haven't done anything significant either. Afghanistan- we claimed victory there. Bull shit. Hamid Karzai is an utter failure. We always station people in "democratic power" who we believe will side with us no matter what. If you don't believe this, go back and check what happened with Iran and yes Bin Laden, at one point of time, was funded by us. The Taliban is regaining strength in Afghanistan. All those lives lost in the desert to search for a cave man- gone in vain. We haven't built anything there that is substantial. That democracy we were so proud of over there is going down the drains. Iraq- that ball game is an open book. We can't do a darn thing to instate a democratic government. We went in thinking that everything could be solved once Saddam Hussein was executed and if we found those non-existent Weapons of Mass Destructions, things would be hunky dory again. Wrong!!! The War on What? echoes this thought perfectly- " Is America's war on terrorism going to become a war against democracy? " (May 8, 2002). During the Cold war we supported dictators who promised us various things, once they were in the government they became what they were meant to be- dictators. We are doing nothing different today. President Pervez Musharraf is a dictator, there is no denying that. Add onto that he is a General of the Army too. We never asked him to step down from the post of the General until the Sharif threat returned after Supreme Court said former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was wrongfully sent to exile and could come back to the country. Lo and behold, Musharraf steps down as General and lets exiled Benazir Bhutto to come back to Pakistan too; pressurized to do so by none other than the United States of America. Don't be fooled. The Mullahs and Taliban are gaining strength in Pakistan too. Wait for a while until the so-called liberal theocratic state goes back to the tough regimes of the Taliban. We fight for human rights everywhere else, except for the Arab states cause we know that it will stop flow of oil. Same logic why we couldn't say a thing against Hugo Chavez when he called President Bush - "A devil" at the United Nations, same reason we haven't done anything against Fidel Castro cause we know then Florida will never see the dawn of day ever again.
If it still isn't evident, we are getting isolated by the day. We are not the world, we need to realize that. Someone once commented as to why the President of the World Bank should be nominated by USA. Why should anyone think of New York City when the UN comes into question and not Geneva? Our allies, and not our foes, are scared of us. Friedman reports in The End of NATO that Brussels, NATO is buzzing with one issue and one alone- that the US has become way too technologically advanced to fight its war on its own, thus forgetting its allies. This is what has happened. We have become over-confident of our strength. We are not in the middle of World War III, we are in the middle of a war between USA and the Muslim world. "My fellow Americans, I hate to say this, but except for the good old Brits, we're all alone. And at the end of the day, it's U.S. and British troops who will have to go in, on the ground, and eliminate bin Laden."( Thomas Friedman,We Are All Alone, October 26,2001). We need a miracle to get us out of this mess. I don't believe in miracles. No amount of diplomacy is going to solve the farce we have created in the world. Something needs to be done....soon...
~Shreya
3 comments:
I dunno if it's their supernatural intelligence or our rash negligence that brought India n the world to such a situation.whatever it is somethings are bound to happen and we learn,don't we! Something needs to be done!!!!! whether that will create yet another conflict or peace.We really don't know!
That book...
Such thoughts ...
Tsk tsk.
@kartik
that book
such thoughts
such people giving such books...(aka you)
"hyuck"
Post a Comment