Skip to main content.

Back to: >> Editorial


Islamic extremists have declared jihad (holy war) against us. Although the tide has turned against the terrorists as they continue to lose sanctuaries, terrorists are making a comeback, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nevertheless, unless we also respond psychologically with tempered ideology, we cannot win a lasting peace. For some of the reasons why, visit:

To be sure, the world cannot be remade in a year, and maybe not in a generation, or even two. But we believe it can be done. All it takes is a long view. American leaders are not well known for their patience, nor are they disposed to finding solutions that would endanger America's privileges begotten by power. Iraq is looking more and more like Vietnam, a war with a vague purpose, with no stated justification that was valid, a quagmire of diplomacy, a basically useless expenditure of natural and human resources.

11 Sept 2001 brought America great sympathy from all corners of the world. Now, 30 months later that sympathy has largely evaporated. For some possible reasons why, see: Noam Chomsky. His remarks from Dec 2001 are timely even today.

How can we survive without friendly trading partners and allies in keeping world peace?

Consider the following attitudes and their probable effects:

Could we not be more enlightened and bring about a better world for all? Consider the same six points:

Wealth disparities reduced; equal opportunity for education realized while still rewarding ability.

Consequence of Trend
1 EnergyAmerica uses large fractions of world supplies.
2 Minerals America uses large fractions of world supplies.
3 EcologyAmerica at odds over air quality & global warming.
4 United NationsAmerica has shirked its responsibilities.
5 Agriculture Surplus Americans growing obese while some nations starve.
6 Various Inequalities\Alienate and humiliate by producing anger, envy, enmity, bigotry, and racism.\
Those Affected
Effects That Boomerang
AlliesAllies can become non-allies on air quality, global warming, & racism—things that matter.
NeutralsAll six attitudes lead neutral "friends" to question us.
Potential EnemiesAll six attitudes used against us in battle for moral high ground.
Feudal DespotsEncouraged and enriched by our oil, mineral, and social attitudes.
American People These attitudes produce arrogance in many, sadness, shame, and political opposition in others.

Could we not be more enlightened and bring about a better world for all? Consider the same six points:

Consequence of Trend
1 EnergyReduce waste; assist others in energy management.
2 Minerals Assist others and share in resource management.
3 Ecology<Equitable distribution of responsibility for solutions.
4 United NationsEquitable assumption of responsibilities.
5 Agriculture & IndustryEncourage education, freedom, and market economies.
6 Various Inequalities<Wealth disparities reduced; equal opportunity for education realized while still rewarding ability.
Those Affected
Effects That Benefit All
AlliesAlliances strengthen and increase in number and quality.
<NeutralsGain respect and alliance when needed.
Potential EnemiesRemove much of their motivation; recover moral high ground.
Feudal DespotsWill lose allies in new world order.
American People Bill of Rights and Four Freedoms equivalents enjoyed by all world citizens.

We are chasing terrorists. But will we later on chase the self interests (despotic and feudal) at home and abroad that give birth to terrorism? The ideologies in conflict are not balanced in kind; secular governance is under assault by Islamic extremists of both religious and secular in kind.

This web site is part of our response. If we offend powerful lobbies and special interests, then so be it. We hope our approach is a voice of reason for all humankind.

Meanwhile the Bush Administration is changing direction almost with every breath. Before and for a while after 9/11, Bush was staunchly unilateral, which is his natural inclination. Ignoring what is right for the world he walked away from international conferences on environmental and racial issues. He declared to the nations of the world in Authoritarian style, that "You are either with us or against us in the war on terror."

After declaring that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea constitute an axis of evil, and while preparing to invade Iraq, Bush discovered that others want a say in what happens and rightfully so. North Korea has a huge modern army and missiles that can hit South Korea and even Japan. They have announced that they have and can test nuclear weaponry. Evidence from Pakistan is that a plutonium device has indeed been tested, but the Pakistani bombs are Uranium--North Korea does! Given that this Administration was so wide of the mark on Iraq, what can we believe about anything it says about Iran or Korea?

In contrast, Iraq had no credible army and no nuclear significance. There is no evidence linking Iraq to Al Qa'ida But North Korea is exporting their missiles. It appears that the wrong threat was addressed first. Of course China will play a decisive role in Korea; of course the US and China need each other more than either needs either Korea. Of course terror via local-faction jihad is hardly the threat that Nuclear Terror is. And that is where Iraq comes in.

Moreover, what happened to Mr. Bush's grand war on terror? Actually it is being ground out in traditional fashion slowly with some success. America has never faced a problem where the real enemy is ill-defined to the public in terms of realistic threats and root causes. His Homeland Security Department (packed with special interest provisions) was the most substantive new legislation. It is still unclear how it can possibly be any better than revitalizing preexisting departments. Perhaps the Axis of Evil was meant to divert attention away from Homeland Security.

The Cold War was so "nuclear-ominous", far more ominous then terror cells, that all nations were forced to take notice. A "with us or against us" ultimatum was not needed for the Cold War; so why is one needed now? There were many neutrals then, some of which played roles in maintaining peace. Such "either / or" approaches are just not practical. It demeans my right to think for myself, it limits options available to the policy maker, and it is stupid politically. The Bush Administration--a third party supposedly not with either side--is trying to broker peace in Palestine with little effect. Mr. Bush apparently did not realize that when he declared "You are with us or you are against us" that the entire world would see him in the same way, either for or against. Since the Palestinians cannot see he is for them he must be against them. True, this is an extreme interpretation, but the essence came out of his mouth--he meant exactly what he said--and the Palestinians fully understand him and his real view of their place in the world.

A "with us or against us" ultimatum was not needed for the Cold War; so why is one needed now?

Given these developments, the Bush Administration still has no foreign policy with coherence, still clings to its Axis of Evil an idea that did not survive its contact with reality (no proof yet that Iraq was any threat). Far from being a world leader, Mr. Bush is still on the learning curve. That may be OK in America, where so many are learning continuously. But why is it taking so long? And why do we still have so far to go? The answer, of course, lies in the untouchable Neoconservative game plan.


1992 "Defense Planning Guidance"
Draft Excerpts [from 11 years ago!]

"This story from PBS/Frontline's 'The War Behind Closed Doors' highlights excerpts from Paul Wolfowitz's then-controversial 'Defense Planning Guidance' draft. Since then, many of the goals in the draft have become the hallmarks of the Bush foreign policy doctrine.

"From the Frontline page:

"The 46-page classified document circulated for several weeks at senior levels in the Pentagon. But controversy erupted after it was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post and the White House ordered then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney to rewrite it.

Three primary points were made in the draft:

  • The number one objective of US post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower.
  • Another major US objective should be to safeguard US interests and promote American values.
  • If necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action."

The first two policies have to do with competition, the kind America espouses. The last policy opens the flood gates to anything necessary in order to bring about the first two.

Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Abram Shulsky, and Richard Perle, essentially run America on behalf of the neoconservatives and plutocrats. They are the Bush war party promoting the neoconservative agenda made explicit in these policies.

Political advice also comes from William Kristol's The Weekly Standard, an influential Washington-based journal of politics and ideas. See Neocons for more.


No comments yet

To be able to post comments, please register on the site.