President Bush: a French terrorist?

Nothing like a little historical perspective on our "War on Terror" to make you think twice about who the terrorists are. A historian compares today's war with the French Revolution, defined by the Jacobins.

The stakes could not be higher, and on these matters there could be no nuance or hesitation. One was either for the Revolution or for tyranny.

Read on for more on how failing to understand history dooms us to repeat it.

U.S. Foreign Policy: Not Really About Democracy

This analysis of the situation in Burma (by one of my favorite political writers, Eric Black) notes that both humanitarian and democratic causes would be well-served by U.S. intervention. Additionally, many politicians and Americans believe that (and say that) American overseas intervention is on the principle of spreading democracy abroad:

The history of U.S. wars and covert interventions, and their relationship to democratization, plus the long-standing close alliances between Washington and some of the world's most repressive regimes do not lend much credibility to this nostrum.

...Pres. Bush spoke of the universal longing for democracy, of the benefits to the U.S. of the spread of democracy in areas of terrorist operations, and of the (historically fairly silly) claim that democracies don't start wars. (In the post-World War II era, the United States has started far more wars than any other nation.)

As much as the author is critical of current U.S. foreign policy priorities, he's not necessarily in favor of a military intervention in Burma.

The history of such U.S. invasions, proxy wars (and covert overthrows, don't forget those) includes too many instances of the United States overthrowing (or helping overthrow) democratic governments (in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Congo in 1960, and Chile in 1973, to name four of the best documented cases), then establishing long, close friendships with the dictators that replaced them.

Many of these cases came about during the Cold War, when U.S. intervention was defended on the basis of anti-communism. The parallels to Iraq (under the guise of anti-terrorism) are a little frightening.

Not to mention, the political grandstanding about "democracy" (after the uncovering of lies about WMD) have eroded people's belief in the U.S. as a benevolent democracy-spreader.

When the Pew Global Attitudes Project conducted 45,239 interviews in 47 nations this year, they asked respondents to choose between these statements:

• The United States promotes democracy wherever it can or
• The United States promotes democracy mostly where it serves its interests.

In 46 of the 47 nations the second answer was the majority or plurality winner...In 38 of the nations, fewer than 30 percent believes the U.S. favors democracy for all. In Britain, only nine percent, in Germany, four; in France, three.

Not even Americans drink the Kool-Aid.

Thirty percent of U.S. respondents agreed with the statement that the U.S. promotes democracy for everyone and for democracy's own sake; 63 percent said no, only when it serves the U.S. interests.

Sad.

Terrorists hate America(n policy)

Courtesy of skemono, a way to shed the propaganda that terrorists simply "hate America."

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to President Carter, carries this analysis to address the question that obsesses us as a nation: What truly motivates the "terrorists," the insurgents, the suicide bombers, all those people who apparently hate us for one reason or another?

The commonly accepted knowledge in the administration and in the Pentagon is that this is a religious war, that these men blow themselves up for God. Not at all, says Brzezinski: "These are political questions. They may seen religious, but in reality they are directly related to our policies. Look at who they are against: the U.S., the Brits, the Israelis. We are seen as the new British colonialists, just as in Vietnam we were seen as the continuation of French colonialism..."

...The study of 300 suicide bombers made by professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago found that virtually none of them was religiously inspired; they were communists, socialists, Muslim Brothers, Arab nationalists, but above all, they were inspired by Western occupation and dominance of their lands.

In other words, suicide bombers are attacking the United States - its civilians on 9/11 and its soldiers in Iraq - because of our political support for Israel, our invasion of Iraq, and other political behavior. And unlike religious fanaticism, there are non-military solutions to politically-motivated killing - such as leaving Iraq.

For more on Pape's groundbreaking work, see his article in the American Political Science Review (pdf). The table on page 6 is very revealing.

Please give Big Brother the smackdown

Seriously, how many times do we have to needlessly trample civil liberties and privacy before we stop letting government profile us?

The Homeland Security Department recently revealed its Automated Targeting System (ATS) that tracks things like what meal you asked for on the plane, when and where you flew, how you paid for your tickets, and seating preference. How useful is this information in catching terrorists?

Government officials could not say whether ATS has apprehended any terrorists.

If you haven't spoken bureaucratese lately, that means ZERO. But it does make sure that my dad gets padded down every time he flies and that despite sending in all sorts of information to the government to try to get off the "watch list," he still has to go through extra security rigmarole every time.

This revelation is in face of research at MIT suggesting (as it has for some time) that random searches will beat computerized profiling any day, especially when we're dealing with potential suicide bombers.

But instead of searching potential terrorists, we're recording their seat and meal preferences.

I feel safer.

Matching that picture does not make you secure

A researcher who had posted a boarding pass generator on his website has just been exonerated due to a complete lack of evidence of criminal intent. He had posted the feature on his website to emphasize that the ID checks and no-fly lists were ineffective methods of preventing terrorist attacks on airplanes, especially compared to random searches.

His post and the following comments highlight the various issues at stake with airport security and identification checks:
1) No fly lists don't work because suicide bombers only need to get through once and can have a clean record beforehand.
2) ID checks are therefore useless because verifying the identity of a suicide bomber before they commit their terrorist act does not stop it.
3) ID checks do, on the other hand, threaten the rights of Americans to fly without informing the government that they are traveling, as well as adding inconvenience to traveling.
4) There are more effective ways - random searches - to improve airplane security.

As he sums up, the issue is not WHO is on the plane but WHAT is on the plane. Letting a potential terrorist onboard but without his weapon will pretty much guarantee failure. On the other hand, making every traveler show ID or profiling Muslim travelers does very little to ensure security.