What are the criteria that help to distinguish the foreign policy approach of the Egalitarian Internationalist Left from that of Neo-Cons and what I tentatively label "Status-Quo" Leftists? I borrow the term, Status-Quo Leftists, I believe, from Christopher Hitchens.
When do members of the Egalitarian-Left advocate intervention and who do we ally ourselves with in order to achieve our objectives?
Neo-Cons, it seems to me, practice the dictim "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It is also the policy of some "Status-quo" Leftists, such as George Galloway.
Al Qaeda is a product of the Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton foreign policy strategy. When the Fascists Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were fighting the enemies of the United States the Neo-Cons helped them and status-quo leftists were against them. When these same people became enemies of the United States their positions switched.
Subscribers to the Euston Manifesto, in stark contrast, are consistent supporters of democratic governments and political movements.
Yesterday, we may support U.S. actions to defeat the Iraq Baathist Party but tommorrow, when the C.I.A. gets back to its regular routine of subverting democracy in Latin America we will find ourselves opposing them.
When do I feel more uncomfortable? When I agree with George Bush or when I agree with Fidel Castro? I would feel more comfortable with the man who will not throw me in jail when I disagree with him.
I would not last a day in Castro’s Cuba. Democrats like me would be extradited or thrown in prison.
Those Canadian leftists who take "Solidarity Vacations" to Cuba are an embarassment. I can drive down to Washington D.C., demonstrate and hurl all the verbal abuse I please at George W., and no one lays a hand on me.
Unfortunately, for some of my comrades, the conclusion is not obvious.
Advertisement
While I agree with many of the points you\’ve made, the idea that "Al Qaeda is a product of the Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton foreign policy strategy" isn\’t defensible. Al Qaeda is in fact a product of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Even if the CIA hadn\’t handed out money to an Islamist intelligence agency in Pakistan that passed money and arms to Afghani mujahideen fighting against the Soviets, Al Qaeda made up of primarily non-Afghani Arabs, still would be launching terrorist attacks on non-combatant civilians. Your analysis deprives them of any agency of their own.
Further, no neocons I am aware of, despite their profound antipathy to the Soviet Union, countenanced, apologized for, or supported Al Qaeda, or the Muslim Brotherhood at any point in time. The decision to financially support and donate RPG\’s and ammunition to the Afghani Mujahideen battling the Soviets through Pakistan\’s ISI was shortsighted to be sure, but neocons were primarily located in the State and Defence Departments and not in the CIA where the decision was made. And finally, it is counterfactual to suggest that anti Soviet neocons, many of whom were pro-Israel and pro-Likud Jewish Americans would be supportive of non-Afghani Arab Muslims whose aspiration it is to wage eternal jihad against Israelis unless and until their country is eradicated.
LBNAZ: Thanks for your comments.
My understanding of the history surrounding Al Qaeda needs improvement. This blog is proving it\’s worth since it affords me an opportunity to sharpen my command of the subject.
Like most people I don\’t consider all the different elements in the U.S. government, or consider the difference between Mujahideen and Al Qaeda. I take it as fact that "Al Qaeda made up of primarily non-Afghani Arabs, still would be launching terrorist attacks on non-combatant civilians."
It was the U.S. government under Jimmy Carter that began funding the Mujahideen. Obviously they are not Neo-cons. So, my good arguement was undermined, slightly, by getting the history wrong. If I am to be credible at the convention, I\’ll have to avoid these kind of mistakes.
Mujahideen, Taleban, Al Qaeda. To me they are all people who advocate using the state to impose their religious beliefs. The Canadian Armed forces are affording the people of Afganistan an opportunity to build an alternative. How can Canadians turn their backs on them?
Here is a link to an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, in which he comments on his role in arming Afghan\’s against the Soviets.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
Welcome to enter (wow gold) and (wow power leveling) trading site, (wow gold) are cheap, (wow power leveling) credibility Very good! Quickly into the next single! Key words directly to the website click on transactions!