Bono's Comments on Terrorism

[A_Wanderer]

No, but I don't blame people for mistaking "neocon" for "modernist" or just being plain-old "principled."

Many neocons were "leftist" (by 1940s standards) modernist academics who didn't take the 1960s and the arrival of postmodernism/relativism all that well. In particular, they tend to be heavily patriotic, and look at the aftermath of WWII and the Marshall Plan as evidence of America's greatness, where we slay an evil entity and use this moment to turn our enemies into powerful allies.

Fast forward to the 1960s, and these neocons perceive the Left as having lost all their principles. They take issue with words like "tolerance," because it implies that they'd have to tolerate people like Hitler if he were still alive; in other words, they believe that there are moments when it is perfectly acceptable to hate someone, and their modernist--and, by extension, futurist--tendencies are still intact. They want to see a world where it's always the end of WWII, and the U.S. is instrumental in overthrowing oppressive regimes and transforming a "Nazi Germany" into a powerful democratic, capitalist nation like today's Germany. It is, in many ways, the classic utopian fantasy of "world peace," coupled with the Trotskyite notion of "permanent revolution" to achieve it (although they would most vigorously disagree with the latter analogy here).

By the election of Ronald Reagan, these now-nominally Democratic neocons find a president who shares their ideas of "permanent revolution," and jump to the Republican Party, where they easily integrate and many become part of the presidential inner circle. It should be noted that Reagan, himself, had a similar background to these neocons. Reagan was a registered Democrat, and was even a stated admirer of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, but, unlike the neocons who left, due to foreign policy and philosophical shifts in the Left, Reagan left, because he thought that they had become the party of "big government." Nevertheless, it didn't take much for Reagan and the neocons to adopt each other's passions, and this is probably why Reagan had a series of military campaigns and spent heavily on the military during his presidency.

But I digress, to a point. The reason one might try and interpret Bono's article here as "neocon" is because it's essentially "modernist/futurist" in scope. And, yes, neocons, at their ultimate core, are modernists too. But it's my belief that "neoconservatism" is defined much more narrowly on the basis of philosophy (modernism, infused with the philosophy of Leo Strauss) and all the other baggage I listed above.

At the core, I do think it is time for the Left to figure out what it stands for today, and to put in all the heavy lifting involved to justify it philosophically and logically. I do think that these vague, ill-defined notions of "tolerance" and "pacifism" don't always stand up to vigorous academic scrutiny, and that's where we get into trouble, as then we let all the fanatics do the defining for us, whether its hawkish neocons on one end or reactionary religious fundamentalists on the other. Nature, after all, abhors a void.

One of the very few posts that doesn't blur the line between "neocons" and the Christian right / Palaeoconservatives.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

And I do think Bush and his admin would hold it against him if B was more out spoken about the war.

And quite frankly, if they did indeed do that, that would pretty much kill any sort of respect I may have ever had for anyone in that adminstration. To deny helping out with the Africa crisis because someone dares disagree with your war policy would be about one of THE stupidest, coldest things anyone could ever do.

I like melon's post, too, I think that line of thought makes a lot of sense. And I totally agree that the left needs to get its act together-we've got some great ideas and thoughts, we just need to find a way to properly articulate them, and to be just as strong in our opinions as the opposing side is. Don't cave in just because someone dares to challenge you.

As for Bono himself, I love that article, I think he makes some excellent points in there regarding this issue. I see the argument about how it's more educated people who are part of terrorism-I think that makes some sense. But I also think poverty does play a factor. Maybe not a big one, but I think it shouldn't be dismissed.

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, he is a self professed pacifist.

I have heard him say that in several interviews.

is he? doesn't he say that he sometimes supports military intervention when necessary -- be it WW2, bosnia, or even afghanistan?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I thought he said he wasn't a pacifist, or that he tried to be but it just wasn't reality (which it isn't).

 

[anitram]

^The lack of evidence for a link between poverty and terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists should be matched by actual correlations.

Like that neat study into the over-representation of engineers in Islamist movements compared to other revolutionary organisations.

I think Bono has been framing this issue incorrectly. Whenever he comments on it, it sounds like poor people, by virtue of being poor, oppressed and powerless, are prone to terrorism and indoctrination. In fact, the statistics don't support that with respect to suicide bombers (except in the West Bank, where you do see substantial numbers of very desperate, very poor men acting in retaliation). What poverty does, however, is breed a certain kind of resentment which then predisposes the population at large to be supportive of terrorism, to at least some extent. So while poor people may not necessarily be contributing their sons in large numbers, their passive support makes the flourishing of these groups possible.

 

[BVS]

^Great post...

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think Bono has been framing this issue incorrectly. Whenever he comments on it, it sounds like poor people, by virtue of being poor, oppressed and powerless, are prone to terrorism and indoctrination. In fact, the statistics don't support that with respect to suicide bombers (except in the West Bank, where you do see substantial numbers of very desperate, very poor men acting in retaliation). What poverty does, however, is breed a certain kind of resentment which then predisposes the population at large to be supportive of terrorism, to at least some extent. So while poor people may not necessarily be contributing their sons in large numbers, their passive support makes the flourishing of these groups possible.

West Bank seemed to be the other way, with suicide bombers being on the whole from better of families.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1528062,00.html

 

[anitram]

No, they by and large do, but in the West Bank you also see examples of retaliatory suicide bombing from the lower classes (I hesitate to even suggest there is an upper class there), whereas typically suicide bombers employed in the west, like the UK and the 9/11 group didn't have anyone who was not at least middle class, as far as I can recall.

 

[maycocksean]

One might argue that those that aren't abjectly poor have the luxury of having spare time and mental energy to worked into a frenzy over this or that societal wrong?

 

[U2DMfan]

Yes, he is a self professed pacifist.

I have heard him say that in several interviews.

Bono on Larry King in 2002:

BONO: It's just -- you know, you understand when a child is born and you're watching the child born and you have all of these feelings as a man of -- you know, for me, I've kind of -- I just felt completely -- I was reduced to, you know, to nothing. And I didn't know what to do, you know, somebody that I love is in pain, and who do I have to slap, you know? And you know, that's the doctor and the nurses. They're on your side. And so, as a male, I think it's very confusing.

But then you understand from the feelings that you have for your children, you understand actually why wars are fought. You understand all of these terrible things. It brings -- it's not all wine and roses, you know. It's -- there's an acrid and bitter part, I think, to -- for me, when you realize that you -- you know, and I'm a -- I was a complete and utter pacifist, until I had children.....

 

[indra]

^
Wow. There are a whole hell of a lot of you knows in that bit.

 

[U2girl]

he only strives to be a pacifist

And I do think Bush and his admin would hold it against him if B was more out spoken about the war.

Something often ignored when considering his stance on things.

"I think you're wrong re: fighting terrorism and you're a bad President" just doesn't go along with "I want help for Africa".

He got the "war on terror is connected to war on poverty" bit from Colin Powell. Of course poor people won't turn into terrorists, but they will probably support them more willingly. Oppression is a bigger factor in producing a terrorist than poverty or religious hate IMO.

 

[Vincent Vega]

^
Wow. There are a whole hell of a lot of you knows in that bit.

Were he twenty years younger you probably would have had some "like" in it as well.

A teacher of mine is using basically pretty often. We've counted, in a block of 180 minutes lecture it was over 100 times "basically"
After a while you get so annoyed by the word you want to run.

 

[digitize]

Is Al Qaeda a threat? Yes. Why? Because we made it a threat. Does invading random countries in the middle east solve the problem at all? NO!

I miss War-era Bono. While I do agree with some of what he said here, I have a feeling he buys into the 'war on terrorism' nonsense a bit too much.

However, he is certainly entitled to his opinions, and I'm not going to say 'shut up and sing'. Bono is a great person.

 

[melon]

Is Al Qaeda a threat? Yes. Why? Because we made it a threat.

Although that makes for a good sound bite--and while I'm quite loathe to play this card at all...

This made Al Qaeda a threat, not us. As for the proper course of action to deal with them, we can debate that. But let's not resort to self delusions in the meantime.

 

[U2girl]

Says Wikipedia:

In 1996, Bin Laden issued his first fatwa which called for "American soldiers to get out of Saudi Arabia".

The September 11 attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Shaykh Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman. In the fatwa, Bin Laden directed his followers "to kill Americans anywhere".He also outlined his objections to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people, the ensuing sanctions against Iraq, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War. The fatwa also specifically condemns the U.S. for "plundering" the resources of the region, oppressing the people by supporting abusive regimes in the region, and dictating policy to legitimate leaders. It also opposes the presence of U.S. military bases and installations in the region, especially on Muslim holy land, which are used to "threaten" Muslim countries, while fomenting disunity and strife.

 

[Vincent Vega]

So, now the USA are guilty?

 

[Dreadsox]

Haha! Yes, of course. We should forget the fact that the reason the USA was in the region protecting SAUDI ARABIA was due to the invasion of Kuwaiit by Iraq. We should forget the fact that the sanctions were put in place, because NOBODY in the region wanted to destablize Iraq by removing Saddam.

Haha! Love the WIKI quote.

Yep we are guilty alright.

 

[Irvine511]

because NOBODY in the region wanted to destablize Iraq by removing Saddam.

gee, why would nobody want to do that?

 

[melon]

Says Wikipedia:

In 1996, Bin Laden issued his first fatwa which called for "American soldiers to get out of Saudi Arabia".

The September 11 attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Shaykh Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman. In the fatwa, Bin Laden directed his followers "to kill Americans anywhere".He also outlined his objections to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people, the ensuing sanctions against Iraq, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War. The fatwa also specifically condemns the U.S. for "plundering" the resources of the region, oppressing the people by supporting abusive regimes in the region, and dictating policy to legitimate leaders. It also opposes the presence of U.S. military bases and installations in the region, especially on Muslim holy land, which are used to "threaten" Muslim countries, while fomenting disunity and strife.

When Bush says something, for example, people are (rightly) skeptical of what he says. When he prematurely declared, "Mission Accomplished," nobody believed him, because the facts did not live up to the rhetoric...

...and, yet, the minute a terrorist organization regurgitates rhetoric like this, many people start quoting it as if it is the infallible gospel truth. The reality is that the hypothetical disappearance of the U.S. is not going to mean the dismantlement of Al Qaeda, because this rhetoric, frankly, does not live up to the scrutiny.

Al Qaeda has expressed an interest in the "revival" of the "Islamic caliphate," which means an interest in reclaiming, at least, all of the territories of the various Islamic empires that existed from the 7th century A.D. up to the beginning of the 20th century. If we are to do that, that would include all of the present-day Muslim nations in the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia; but also Spain ("Al-Andalus") and a good chunk of Eastern Europe, which, for centuries, had been part of the Ottoman Empire. Frankly, even if this goal were to be attained, I have my doubts that they would stop there, as these historical Islamic empires were known for their expansionism.

That being said, I reiterate my point again: Al Qaeda made itself a global threat; it is not an imaginary one or an American-provoked one. We can debate the proper course on how to deal with them. We can criticize Iraq for potentially being a costly diversion that has little to no relevance in dealing with the eradication of Al Qaeda. But engaging in "feel good" anti-American rhetoric is completely counterproductive and disingenuous, at best, and self-delusional, at the very least.

 

[Irvine511]

That being said, I reiterate my point again: Al Qaeda made itself a global threat; it is not an imaginary one or an American-provoked one. We can debate the proper course on how to deal with them. We can criticize Iraq for potentially being a costly diversion that has little to no relevance in dealing with the eradication of Al Qaeda. But engaging in "feel good" anti-American rhetoric is completely counterproductive and disingenuous, at best, and self-delusional, at the very least.

 

[U2girl]

So, now the USA are guilty?

No. I'm saying the no doubt horrible events had a history and a context. You can't pretend 9/11 didn't have a background in years and decades of foreign policies (US in this case) in the Middle East, it's cheap at best and ignorant at worst to exclusively wave the victim flag due to newborn post 9/11 feel-good patriotism and shut out US's past and present actions in the region and the complexity of relationships in the region itself.

Dreadsox: Bin Laden wanted to fight the Iraquis in Gulf war I first (offered his services to Saudi Arabia), but was denied in favour of the coalition. Yet another thing that added to his anti-West rage.
Unrelated to the sanctions themselves, or removing Saddam.

 

[melon]

No. I'm saying the no doubt horrible events had a history and a context. You can't pretend 9/11 didn't have a background in years and decades of foreign policies (US in this case) in the Middle East, it's cheap at best and ignorant at worst to exclusively wave the victim flag due to newborn post 9/11 feel-good patriotism and shut out US's past and present actions in the region and the complexity of relationships in the region itself.

It's "cheap and ignorant" to put on your blinders to all the other issues affecting the Middle East that have nothing to do with the U.S.

For one, that's ignoring the effect that the former Soviet Union had on this area. For two, that's ignoring the effect that the European (i.e., non-U.S.) colonial powers had on the region in the first half of the 20th century. For three, that's ignoring the effect that the nearly 600 year old Ottoman Empire had on this region, and the effect that its disintegration left behind.

And while we're on that last subject, I believe that is most of the reason why the Middle East is the way it is today; because, for better or for worse, these nations are only 80 years old, having never existed prior. Saudi Arabia, in particular, was a region of poor nomadic tribes in the 1920s, and only became wealthy upon the discovery of oil. Combine this with an opulent royal family that nobody particularly likes in Saudi Arabia, and you have the seeds that sowed the origins of Osama bin Laden's terrorism. He has openly stated that he wants to eliminate the "Saudi" portion of "Saudi Arabia" (as it is a reference to the nation's royal "House of Saud").

As for the U.S. in all of this? It is less of a direct enemy, as much as a symbolic one. In this case, the U.S. represents the ideals of secular capitalist society. It is less of a "nation" in the eyes of many, as much as it is representative of an "idea." There were many immigrants back in the day, for instance, that literally expected the streets of the U.S. to be "paved with gold." Contrast this with Al Qaeda's dream of reviving the Islamic caliphate--a position that Turkey (the modern successor to the Ottoman Empire, the last Islamic empire) legislatively abolished in 1924. It is their dream, as such, to pick up the mantle of the medieval Islamic empire, and, combining that with an especially harsh, extremist and highly intolerant form of Islam, and we would have the recipe for disaster that we have today.

If the U.S. disappeared tomorrow, do you honestly believe that Al Qaeda would disband tomorrow and everyone would go home peacefully? Think about it.

Dreadsox: Bin Laden wanted to fight the Iraquis in Gulf war I first (offered his services to Saudi Arabia), but was denied in favour of the coalition. Yet another thing that added to his anti-West rage.
Unrelated to the sanctions themselves, or removing Saddam.

While still in Saudi Arabia in 1989 [prior to the Gulf War I], he angered the Saudi royal family by preaching for and financing assassinations of socialist leaders in the neighboring country of Yemen, his father's homeland, where the country was in the process of re-uniting under a coalition government.

So let's get this straight. You'd prefer that Saudi Arabia hug up to a man like this instead?

 

[U2girl]

If the U.S. disappeared tomorrow, do you honestly believe that Al Qaeda would disband tomorrow and everyone would go home peacefully? Think about it.


So let's get this straight. You'd prefer that Saudi Arabia hug up to a man like this instead?

I'll skip the history lectures that I don't need and just skip to the questions :

No. I don't think anyone said that anyway.

No, I just said the man offered his aid to Saudi Arabia.

 

[INDY500]

Al Qaeda made itself a global threat; it is not an imaginary one or an American-provoked one. We can debate the proper course on how to deal with them. We can criticize Iraq for potentially being a costly diversion that has little to no relevance in dealing with the eradication of Al Qaeda. But engaging in "feel good" anti-American rhetoric is completely counterproductive and disingenuous, at best, and self-delusional, at the very least.

Very well said. However, let me add that if enough people choose to ignore a very real threat, it's worse than self-delusional, it's negligent. And innocent people have, and will again, suffer for it.

 

[Irvine511]

Very well said. However, let me add that if enough people choose to ignore a very real threat, it's worse than self-delusional, it's negligent. And innocent people have, and will again, suffer for it.

while i totally agree, i think it's worth saying that confronting this threat doesn't mean that we must turn ourselves into a presidential protectorate where torture, detainment, and rendition are seen as necessary to protect ourselves.

for they are not. and they destroy whatever is indeed worth protecting.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

while i totally agree, i think it's worth saying that confronting this threat doesn't mean that we must turn ourselves into a presidential protectorate where torture, detainment, and rendition are seen as necessary to protect ourselves.

for they are not. and they destroy whatever is indeed worth protecting.

Exactly. Especially since we run around condeming (and occasionally starting wars with) other countries that do those exact same things. The hypocrisy we've shown throughout this "war on terror" is astounding, and just makes it so much harder for us to be taken seriously.

melon's absolutely right, though, this issue is way too complex, there's no one thing that's caused the mess that's going on there now. We're not helping matters at all, no, we're just adding more fuel to the fire, and we desperately need to rethink our approach to dealing with the issues in the Middle East, but yeah, a lot of these problems would still be there even if we weren't, sadly.

Angela

 

[Dreadsox]

gee, why would nobody want to do that?

If they had done it in the gulf war....

It would have been a true multinational force, including countries from the region.

It should have been done then.

And I would bet with the true coalition, Iraq would look a lot different today.

 

[Dreadsox]

No. I'm saying the no doubt horrible events had a history and a context. You can't pretend 9/11 didn't have a background in years and decades of foreign policies (US in this case) in the Middle East, it's cheap at best and ignorant at worst to exclusively wave the victim flag due to newborn post 9/11 feel-good patriotism and shut out US's past and present actions in the region and the complexity of relationships in the region itself.

Dreadsox: Bin Laden wanted to fight the Iraquis in Gulf war I first (offered his services to Saudi Arabia), but was denied in favour of the coalition. Yet another thing that added to his anti-West rage.
Unrelated to the sanctions themselves, or removing Saddam.

I fought in the first Gulf War. I know what was going on. I think it disturbing to find it our fault. I have been arguing in here since 9/11 that if the international coalition from the gulf war had dealt with Iraq, and removed Saddam, there would have been no 9/11. I made these points in 2001. It is six years later, and I still believe it.

I find it wrong to say the US deserved it, because they upset this fanatical asshole.

 

[Dreadsox]

I'll skip the history lectures that I don't need and just skip to the questions :

I guess I score that one, point Melon.

You cannot ignore the history lecture because you clearly do need it.

Why would the Saudi government choose an INTERNATIONAL coalition over Osama's protection?

Hmmmm.....