More Q & A on Terror and War

November 18, 2001 9:36 AM

More Q & A on Terror and War
"A number of folks feel that current events -- particularly in the last few days -- have dramatically changed the logic and morality of what has been done in Afghanistan, calling into question much of the analysis and assessment that has been offered by critics of the war. Here are some of the questions we have been asked, and our brief replies."
posted by mapalm (60 comments total)

From Z Magazine, a clear and concise response to the "We-told-you-so" back-slapping and self-congratulation currently running through the corridors of power (and elsewhere). I liked it because these are indeed many of the same questions I answer daily.
posted by mapalm at 9:40 AM on November 18, 2001

By "back-slapping and self-congratulation", I presume you are referring to the comments by Zmagazine. The whining about evidence not being publicly presented is just silly. We trust leaders to tell us the truth and should not be surprised when they do. Now, if Bush had lied about Osama Bin Laden's culpability, then Zmagazine might have something to write about.
posted by Real9 at 9:52 AM on November 18, 2001

The usual I really was right even though I assume you think I was wrong. Honest. Food: drought. It was there before we began bombing. Our aid will only help.
Bin loaden: he may be killed or not but the terror groups are everywhere and this at least closes down much of the current training camps and has activated countries to rooting out the sleepers and active terrorists.
The Northern Alliance: sure. Bad. But what is the alternative? Taliban? At least they kill only each other and do not train folks from other lands to attack the West.
And on and on and on...
Why not merely say thereee is much to be watched for but this has been a start and guess what? We were thus far wrong. But it happens.
posted by Postroad at 9:55 AM on November 18, 2001

Criticism of the Northern Alliance has been not that they are incompetent soldiers, but social monsters, slightly different in kind from the Taliban, but small improvement morally. Nothing in the past few days changes the historical record of the Northern Alliance, and indeed, the first sketchy reports of executions and looting in cities newly fallen under their control suggests that their thuggish practices continue.

Kabul TV came back on the air today after a 5 year absence. It was shut down by the Taliban.

More interesting is that the very first program was hosted by and announced by (wait for it) a 16 year old girl with a bare face. She used to host a children's show when she was 11, before the station was shut down.

In Kabul, women can leave their homes, can walk around with their faces bare, and can send their daughters to school again. Women can hold jobs. Women can once again attend universities.

How in hell is this moral equivalence with the Taliban? This is "small improvement morally"? Tell that to the women of Kabul.

Unfortunately, you won't be able to tell it to all of them, because when they left the Taliban appear to have swept the prisons of the women kept there, and took many of them along in the retreat -- though there is no explanation of why. They were in there for such crimes as embracing men in public, or eloping with loved ones, or "fornication", or for fighting off rapists.

Read and compare and contrast these two articles. Then recognize that any claim that the Northern Alliance is nearly as bad as the Taliban is horseshit. The Northern Alliance are hardly saints, but the Taliban were monsters.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:19 AM on November 18, 2001

Is Z Magazine always this weak? I love the gentleness of the imaginary Z critic asking the questions in their self-satisfied war FAQ. I'm also impressed with the strong anti-good-news defense shield they've built up in only a few weeks of war.
posted by rcade at 10:21 AM on November 18, 2001

Now, if Bush had lied about Osama Bin Laden's culpability, then Zmagazine might have something to write about.

Did I miss something? Has OBL admitted guilt for the 9/11 attack? As far as I remember, his numerous TV appearences live from the cave have basically gone along the lines of "you deserved it" and "watch out because we can do stuff to you just like that". While this may be enough of a confession to most people, I remain somewhat puzzled by this. Can someone give me an explanation of why this man, a man wanted dead or alive by most of the world, a man with a very short life expectancy, does not admit the crime? Did he forget he gave the order? Did a remote Al Qaeda cell do it and not tell him about it? Does he think he may risk offending some moderates that may prove useful to him at a later date? From what I've read about OBL's master plan, he wants the fundamentalist Islamic world to believe that the west is not invincible, and that if anyone can give them a run for their money, it's him and Al Q. It would seem that in these circumstances, even if he wasn't responsible for the 9/11 operation, it would be in his interests to lie and take the credit for it. In much the same way that terrorist actions related to the Northern Irish conflict always seemed to end up with more than one terrorist group owning up for it. So does anyone have any ideas?

Please don't take this as another are-they-guilty-or-not wind up, because I'm not trying to take sides here. I'm just curious about this point.
posted by dlewis at 10:24 AM on November 18, 2001

Can someone give me an explanation of why this man, a man wanted dead or alive by most of the world, a man with a very short life expectancy, does not admit the crime?

To my knowledge, Bin Laden has never admitted responsibility for the terrorist attacks he masterminded.

Shortly after Sept. 11, an Al Qaeda spokesman said that Muslims and children should stay out of planes and tall buildings in the U.S. Even if you are willing to presume Bin Laden's innocence at this point, we know Al Qaeda can carry out that threat to the U.S. because of other attacks. Isn't the U.S. compelled to take that threat seriously and go after the group?
posted by rcade at 10:30 AM on November 18, 2001

Let me make myself a little clearer - I'm not questioning the US actions, I'm questioning Bin Laden's actions. We're told that he's politically quite a shrewd man (if you can look past all the "evil, delusional, paranoid, monsterous, murderous.." adjectives that get fed to the general populace, and that don't really help us understand the man's motives or his possible future plans of attack). If this is the case, I'm just wondering what were his political motivations for not admitting his guilt for 9/11.
posted by dlewis at 10:41 AM on November 18, 2001

The United Kingdom's case against Osama Bin Laden as published by the United States.

My favorite is: "If instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans . . . is considered to be a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal" - OBL
posted by Real9 at 10:43 AM on November 18, 2001

Bin Laden: Yes, I did it. November 11, 2001 "Osama Bin Laden has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Telegraph can reveal."
posted by Carol Anne at 11:09 AM on November 18, 2001

He freely admits to being behind the attacks: "If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents and this is legal religiously and logically."

I'm not convinced this is a confession. My knowledge of Arabic is scant, but I think I remember there being only two tenses: past, and present. Present is also used for future, "I kill" means "I will kill". But not "I have killed". (Any Arabic speakers out there feel free to butt in at this moment and tell me that I'm talking out of my arse.. it wouldn't be the first time I've been guilty of that ;-)

In this respect, these quotes seem to go along the line of what I mentioned previously. That is, he says: "you deserved it" and "we can do stuff like that to you in the future". Does anyone know if there are any more viewings of this latest secret video?

Again, let me reiterate the fact that I'm not questioning the legitamacy of Al Qaeda as a target, nor even am I questioning Bin Laden's guilt here. So I don't want to get caught up in a argument about the legitamacy of the war. I'm just surprised he hasn't outright confessed to the WTC atrocity, and I'm interested why.
posted by dlewis at 11:26 AM on November 18, 2001

Carol Anne - Note that in this transcript he is not actually quoted as saying he was responsible for the WTC attacks, despite what the headline says. He admits to being a terrorist and to killing innocents. He says the people who did do it were blessed by Allah. But do you suppose that if he intended to make a confession he would dance around the issue like that?
posted by Hildago at 11:43 AM on November 18, 2001

Re: morality towards women.

The Northern Alliance may have recently let a girl read the news, but 1992-1996 women were raped en masse, young girls were forced into marriages with military commanders, thousands of women in Kabul alone were killed and tortured by the Northern Alliance. People remember this and this is why journalists have great difficulty in persuading women to take off their burqas for the cameras. The fact is the burqa has been worn and will continue to be worn in Alliance controlled areas. There is nothing liberating about the Alliance attitude towards women. Spin the news however you want but it's all much of a muchness no matter how hard Laura Bush spins it.
posted by dydecker at 12:04 PM on November 18, 2001

There is nothing wrong with the questions, but there is a hell of a lot wrong with the answers. It would be nice if they had instead attempted to look at the situation from a balanced perspective, rather that taking a poor position and then grasping around for any evidence that may support it. A 2 year old could counter much of what is written in that piece.
posted by RobertLoch at 12:08 PM on November 18, 2001

Let me see if I can digest this spiel down:

They refuse to admit they were pessimistic about the outcome because the cause was morally corrupt and therefore, even if not as bad as predicted, can never be accepted as good.

This is Kantian logic at its best. A moral bad will always reveal its terrible ends; if not yet, then in the future. One can always forecast dire problems down the road. The religious apocalyptists make the mistake of setting dates, but barring that kind of specificity, these kind of 'prophecies' will always be possible because they're always postponable.

Nevertheless, we would deduce based on our knowledge of their past policies that they made the choice out of their own strategic concerns, not out of concern for those suffering hunger. When the U.S. claims to care about the Afghan poor, we should not relinquish our critical faculties, just as we wouldn't were the Taliban to make the claim.

This reveals their (the authors') agenda. The US is as morally corrupt as the Taliban. Buy that and you buy the rest of their 'glass-is-totally-empty' story. Accept even a modicum of good intentions out of the American actions and you can build a more balanced assessment of the outcome, not to mention hold some sincere hope for the Afghan future.

I think the world is better served by optimistic worldviews rather than cynical worldviews. This sort of anti-Pollyanna stance cloaked in critical thinking (in its most negative way) doesn't exactly help people get fed.
posted by dness2 at 12:13 PM on November 18, 2001

There seems to be to much willingness to attack anyone with a dissenting opinion, than to accept that dissent is necessary. We need iconoclasts like Noam Chomsky on the left and, recently, (as much as I'm loathe to except this) Cal Thomas on the right to balance out perspectives, to make us have to defend our own belief systems...

A 2 year old could counter much of what is written in that piece.

Instead of writing that, why not counter most of what is written in the piece?
posted by drezdn at 12:21 PM on November 18, 2001

I guess then that all the guys convicted of murder who went to their executions without admitting uilt wre really innocent. But if you need more to show Bin Laen's guilt, try this:
http://www.observer.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1501,597008,00.html

If that can't convince you, not much else will.
posted by Postroad at 12:25 PM on November 18, 2001

Postroad: instead of replying "but he is guilty, look!", how about answering my question about what do we think his political motivations are for not confessing to the crime.

Example answer:

Osama Bin Laden has never directly admitted his involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York because he wishes to take advantage of the great deal of hesitation concerning Al Qaeda's guilt among left-wing liberal appeasers. It is a subtle ploy to advance his worldwide propaganda war.

That's one example of a possible motivation. Does anyone have any other theories?
posted by dlewis at 12:41 PM on November 18, 2001

My knowledge of Arabic is scant, but I think I remember there being only two tenses: past, and present. Present is also used for future, "I kill" means "I will kill". But not "I have killed".

I only have a year's training in Arabic, but from what I understand, there is a future tense (al-mudaari) in modern standard arabic, and it specifies future action with the use of what is transliterated as "sawfa" or "sa" preceeding the present tense conjugation of the verb. The actual verb is present tense, but is not considered future without the preceding "sawfa" or "sa".

that said, i would never expect an outright confession from bin Laden, and i wouldn't consider it necessary criteria for proof of guilt. the most damning evidence would have to be very specific and I don't see how very specific information could be made without putting the human sources at risk.
posted by lizs at 12:45 PM on November 18, 2001

I don't see how very specific information could be made without putting the human sources at risk.

er... made *public* ... sorry.
posted by lizs at 12:46 PM on November 18, 2001

In Kabul, women can leave their homes, can walk around with their faces bare, and can send their daughters to school again. Women can hold jobs. Women can once again attend universities.

That's a rather tenuous "can". As Chris Stephen notes from Kabul (in an Observer piece not yet online), dydeckers assertion is quite accurate:

The religious police are gone, but the burqas, the great tent-like garments that cover women and make them look like shapeless cartoon ghosts, remain. Foreign newspaper photographers, under pressure to produce images of the city's rejection of the Taliban, can be seen each day persuading a few women to remove these garments. What the photos do not show is the women putting them back on moments later. For the fact remins that the Alliance feels the same way about women as the Taliban did -- they are chattel, to be tolerated but kept out of real life. Instead of the religious police, the Alliance use shame as their weapon -- to walk around in normal clothes is to walk around naked, inviting ridicule on the husband who owns you.

The first pictures of the post-Taliban city showed picture postcards of female singers, Bollywood actresses and other women. Which suggests that there's a rather familiar double-standard when it comes to the treatment of "celebrity" women and the women around you.

[ John Simpson's BBC World reports from the NA strongholds a few weeks ago made the same point: he tried, rather ungainfully, to talk to a girl of around 12 years old who'd gone outside. She sprinted away, hiding her face. ]

Carol Anne: this NYTimes article muddies the waters about the "I did it" videotape:

Matthew Furman, a CNN spokesman, said the network was seeking a copy. He noted that the Sunday Telegraph reporter told CNN that he had not actually seen the video, but only the transcript. To date, no news organization has located the videotape, let alone broadcast it. And that surprises 10 Downing Street, which seems to think reporters should have found it by now.
posted by holgate at 12:56 PM on November 18, 2001

Postroad - I think the point (to me) is not that we can supposedly prove Bin Laden guilty post facto, but why more people didn't demand evidence beforehand. The principle here is justice, and justice is not served when you condemn somebody, punish them, and then show evidence, especially if it's evidence you didn't know was there in the first place.
posted by Hildago at 12:58 PM on November 18, 2001

'but as the U.S. pushes its dictatorial allies to join Washington's holy war'

drezdn is there a need to explain why statements such as this are misguided, or ignorant?

My main gripe with this Q & A is the lack of context. My objection with the left has often been more to do with their failure to offer alternatives, rather than what they have said per se. This piece is yet another example of that, or arguably worse in that it makes accusations without any form of justification.
posted by RobertLoch at 12:58 PM on November 18, 2001

Oh, and have you noticed why there aren't any reports from "liberated" Mazar-e-Sharif? That's because there's an ongoing gun battle between General Dostum's Uzbek Junbish organisation and the Hazara Hizb-i Wahdat. The UNCHR still considers the place too dangerous to send in aid suppliers, independent monitors or foreign media.
posted by holgate at 1:06 PM on November 18, 2001

holgate: From which nation are the posed photos coming from? Or what press organization, which is based where? No legitimate and respected news organization in the U.S. would knowingly accept posed photos, and anyone who took such photos and was found out would be fired on the spot.
posted by raysmj at 1:17 PM on November 18, 2001

holgate: Also, are we talking TV or newspapers here? I have no idea from the article. I've seen one major news TV news operation stage a photo op before. But I've seen and heard countless stories photojournalists fired over such, and I imagine the better TV editors aren't too keen on it either. How could everyone get away with this all the time? It's impossible.
posted by raysmj at 1:22 PM on November 18, 2001

I was asked to state not whether or not he was guilty but if he is guilty then what would be his motivation for not admitting it.
I don't know. I do know that lots of people do things that are not decent, not right, not moral and do not admit it. I am not inhaling. No, I did not have sex (aka fuck) with that girl.
Could it be some fairly tale upbring we have all had that a guilty person must stand up and admit they are guilty, even when they are not in court, and not even caught?
posted by Postroad at 1:52 PM on November 18, 2001

Drezdn, I did refute some of what they wrote. But most of it cannot be refuted because it simply says "If you wait long enough what we predict will happen." That's unfalsifiable because any response would be answered "You haven't waited long enough."
posted by Steven Den Beste at 2:28 PM on November 18, 2001

Prior to World War ll, we were aware of the atrocities of the Soviet Union: that they had imprisoned and killed tens of millions of their own subjects in the name of an ideology which was diametrically opposed to our core beliefs and values; After December 7,1941, they became our 'New Best Friend', and as one of the Allies, helped mightily to defeat Nazi Germany. In saving the world from the Axis, we enabled the Soviets to not just survive, but to capture most of the Europe we were trying to save; we thus helped ensure 50 more years of repression for not only the Soviet citizens, but their new 'allies' in Eastern Europe. The difference was that the Soviets didn't attack us or protect our attackers.
This is analogous to Afghanistan:the Northern Alliance is our 'NBF' because they share a keystone goal of ours: the destruction of the Taliban and binLadens people. PRAGMATISM demands that we let them help us reach our goals. We do not have to like them; they will turn on us and each other soon enough, but they didn't attack us and they don't want to protect those who did. If they'll let us, the free world will help rebuild their country. Hope so.
posted by Mack Twain at 2:28 PM on November 18, 2001

Holgate, they unloaded a barge in Mazar-e Sharif a couple of days ago, filled with food and humanitarian supplies.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 2:29 PM on November 18, 2001

Postroad, why should he admit anything? What would that gain him?

Do you really think he'd do it just because it's the right thing to do?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 2:30 PM on November 18, 2001

The United Front (northern alliance) is not the equivalent of the Taliban-not even close. The only reason Massoud is not as revered in the Leftist world as Che Guevera or Ho Chi Minh is because he engaged in guerilla warfare with the socialist superpower rather than the imperialistic one, apparently a sin the Left cannot forgive to this day.
The liberation of Kabul is not propaganda.
But why argue further because time will tell itself. The truth will out. Don't forget two days ago some here were seriously saying the Taliban's apparent rout was actually a strategic withdrawal.
posted by quercus at 2:45 PM on November 18, 2001

Steven, what would it gain him not to admit it? An operation of the scale and complexity of September 11 must have taken an enormous effort from Al Qaeda. Despite their thoroughly despicable and ruthless methods, Al Qaeda - as with most terrorist groups - do possess a political agenda. Mad this political agenda may be, but a politcal agenda it is none the less. Why spend so much time and resources on an offensive like this ... and then not bother to tell anyone about it? Al Qaeda desperately wants to persuade the steadily accumulating extremist Islamic groups that are currently threatening to destablize many middle-eastern countries, that America is a vulnerable opponent when faced with the capabilities of its network. They need the support of these groups to extend their influence from what is now a crumbling Afghanistan, to lands of greater wealth and possibilities (indeed, it is for this very reason that these countries' present governments see Al Qaeda to be as much of a threat as we do). In light of this, Al Qaeda would actually seem to have a lot to gain from admitting its guilt.
posted by dlewis at 3:15 PM on November 18, 2001

DLewis, you're making the argument to the wrong person. The point is that positive action requires positive results. The default is to not do something. So absent a good reason for him to admit it (and I can't think of one) then you'd assume he would not do so.

But if you want another answer, it's this: the only one he cares about convincing is God, because that's who he thinks his mission comes from. I have no doubt he's confessed (or bragged) about it in his prayers. He doesn't care what the rest of us think.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 3:23 PM on November 18, 2001

RAWA do not seem to be very confident that the Northern Alliance has the people of Afghanistan's interests at heart. And while they aren't the Taliban, they certainly have done their fair share of damage in Afghanistan. At least certain of the faction leaders should not be involved in the government, especially Sayyaf and Dostum, who is called a contender for leadership in this BBC profile. Massoud worked hard to remove much of the memory of human rights abuses committed by the various factions, and now only time will tell if the alliance can hold the various factions together to prevent civil war. There'a an odd article here stating that the alliance wants to dictate its own terms of government, but it's fairly reactionary, so who knows?
posted by kittyloop at 4:08 PM on November 18, 2001

Cleopatra and Osama. The New York Times' Maureen Dowd asks:
Bush senior went to war to liberate Kuwait, yet America has not made a fuss over the fact that Kuwaiti women still can't vote or initiate divorce proceedings. We also turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's treating women like chattel. There are 5,000 Saudi princes, but where are the princesses? The Saudi religious police, the matawain, use sticks to make sure women hide beneath their abayas, the long black cloaks. But the Bushes love that royal family and its oil. What does it matter if Saudi women can drive, as long as American women can keep driving their S.U.V.'s?
posted by Carol Anne at 4:15 PM on November 18, 2001

kittyloop: a number of NA ground commanders have expressed extreme disquiet over the presence of British Royal Engineers on the ground at Gulbakhar airstrip. And the British defence secretary has also expressed his concerns over the NA's resistance to outside assistance. The arrival of Rabbani yesterday also suggested that there's an attempt to establish the titular president as power-broker. (The discussions among NA leaders broadcast on the BBC's Panorama tonight were fairly interesting: it suggests that by maintaining Rabbani's position as Afghan president-in-exile, the UN might have given him more power than he deserves to dictate the peace. And not even the NA appreciate the memories of 1992-6 that he brings to Kabul.)

Holgate, they unloaded a barge in Mazar-e Sharif a couple of days ago, filled with food and humanitarian supplies.

From what I'd heard, Steven, the barges had been sent from port, but that their supplies hadn't arrived in Mazar yet, because of the city's instability. There's no report on the WFP site, and the ReliefNet bulletin from November 16th announcing that the WFP targets were reached notes that "security in Mazar-I-Sharif is still unstable and that the WFP warehouse and office have been completely looted . . . Due to ongoing security constraints the food is being stockpiled in Hairaton until security allows distribution." If you have a more recent link, I'd be glad to know that the aid has got from Hairaton to Mazar.

That's why French troops are being sent into the city (making them the largest overt Western ground presence, even though you've consistently sniped at the French in recent weeks) is, because the city "is not yet secure enough for non-governmental organisations to work". (That said, MSF re-established a presence in the city on Wednesday, reinforcing their reputation for braving the most dangerous conditions. But the wire reports on Hazara disquiet continue. It's going to be interesting when the 2,000 Hazaras from Bamiyan, armed and given bales of money by US special forces, reach Kabul.)

I have no doubt he's confessed (or bragged) about it in his prayers.

Oh, come on. Are you starting a new business as a phone psychic? Because that's the only way you can justify that comment.
posted by holgate at 4:19 PM on November 18, 2001

Speaking of back-slapping and self-congratulatory folderol, I submit to you Exhibit Z-z-z-z: the aforementioned New York Times column Cleopatra and Osama, by Maureen Dowd.

She starts out great with her comparison of Cleopatra's style to that of today's middle east. But then, as usual, right on cue, she resorts to turning in yet another grating, phoned-in, purely partisan rant.

Instead of applauding Laura Bush's radio address, it being the first time a First Lady has ever taken that presidential responsibility upon herself, she reduces it strictly to a crass political calculation on behalf of the Bush Administration, as their attempt to appease women put off by their pro-life politics.

And even though Mrs. Bush's topic for the day is about liberating Afghan women, Ms. Dowd complains that Mrs. Bush has failed by not talking about all women's rights, everywhere.

And so on and so on. In the meantime, she conveniently forgets that the Bush Administration has appointed more women and minorities to positions of power than any other administration I can think of (or, if I'm wrong, and if the Clinton Administration has them beat on this score, then the Bushies are certainly a damn close second).

The bitter, always divisive Maureen Dowd doesn't deserve to be on the same page with Tom Friedman, whose critical commentary is not only a magnitude more intelligent, but reliably constructive, positive, and actually useful.
posted by verdezza at 6:24 PM on November 18, 2001

verdezza: Instead of applauding Laura Bush's radio address, it being the first time a First Lady has ever taken that presidential responsibility upon herself....

mrs bush isn't the president. many people resented it when they felt that hillary rodham clinton took upon herself any responsibility that was, in fact, her husband's.

what makes you think this action wasn't run through the administration's advisors? when is it appropriate for the unelected spouse of a leader to take upon him or herself the responsibilities of the leader they married?

and I think it's worthwhile to point out inconsistencies in the stated aims of any administration contrasted with their actions regarding similar situations in countries with governments that are friendly to us.
posted by rebeccablood at 6:41 PM on November 18, 2001

Hmm. Dowd spent months on end attacking the Clinton's from every conceivable angle, and won a Pulitzer in the process. She's purely partisan, as usual? Huh?
posted by raysmj at 6:50 PM on November 18, 2001

Rebeccablood, I don't think the situations are the same the way you mean it. We didn't have an opportunity to rebuild a country like we have now; maybe we should have taken it, but regardless. The situations are the same in the way that neither war started over womens' rights. Therefore, I think that the editorial is wrong to imply that we are remiss not to address every unfairness in the world.
I think the speech was fluff and probably (more than) a bit politically motivated, but I don't think we should hold LB to high goals in changing womens' situation around the world. That would be too high for anyone and smack of moral imperialism.
posted by dness2 at 6:52 PM on November 18, 2001

quercus: Funny you should mention Massoud and Che Guevara. The late Russian journalist Artyom Borovik writes in The Hidden War -- his accounts, from 1981 and 1989, of the beginning and end of the Soviet-Afghan war -- that he was in a top Soviet Army office looking at a wall-size poster of Che (the famous photo), and reflected that he had been told that Massoud also had a poster of Che.

One of the things about the burqa is that even the women may believe in wearing them. Even with the Taliban gone, Afghanistan will remain a conservative Muslim nation. I don't think the wearing of burqas is something we can tar them with; the more important questions are whether women will have the independence they have in other Muslim nations, such as venturing outside unaccompanied (frowned on in SA), driving (not in Saudi Arabia!), getting proper and equal education (separate but largely equivalent in SA), and holding professional jobs (many professions are still barred to women in SA). The irony is that if you ask the women, many of them will support these restrictions as religiously mandated.

The important thing to me is not that the Northern Alliance are the world's greatest democratic republicans, but that without the Taliban, Afghanistan now has a chance at a stable and just democratic society that will participate in the world's institutions with responsibility. Like not allowing terrorists to train on their land. Also, a key point to consider is that the Taliban-alQaeda régime was largely non-Afghan. The new institutions may be troubled by warlords, but you can't argue that they're not Afghan. At that point it becomes the responsibility of the Afghans themselves to create the new stable society and polity that will give them the things that they need -- like peace, and sufficient food, and economic development. All the Taliban brought was stability, of Mussolini's variety.
posted by dhartung at 7:02 PM on November 18, 2001

Whoops: the Hidden War. It's quite good, though more about the soldier's psychology than about the strategy or history.
posted by dhartung at 7:05 PM on November 18, 2001

verdezza: Instead of applauding Laura Bush's radio address, it being the first time a First Lady has ever taken that presidential responsibility upon herself....

mrs bush isn't the president. many people resented it when they felt that hillary rodham clinton took upon herself any responsibility that was, in fact, her husband's.

I don't recall any mention in the Constitution of a responsibility to make weekly radio addresses. It's actually something that the sitting President has only been doing for less than 20 years (it started in the Reagan administration). It's surely not a "responsibility", in any meaningful sense.

In the mean time, it may well be true that Laura Bush is not the President, but she's a US citizen who has full First Amendment rights, and she has just as much right to speak her mind as does anyone else in the US. One does not lose one's right of free expression when one's spouse is elected President, and there is a long tradition of First Ladies making political statements (such as Eleanor Roosevelt, as well as Betty Ford whom I liked a lot).

Now given that the President has no obligation to make that radio address, why should he not loan that spot to an upstanding citizen of the US who has something important she wants to say?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 7:05 PM on November 18, 2001

Surely if the French troops are going in then by definition the war must be over.
posted by RobertLoch at 7:19 PM on November 18, 2001

she has just as much right to speak her mind as does anyone else in the US.

I believe that you yourself have said on a few occasions that the constitutional right to speak one's mind does not entail the right to be heard, and certainly not the right to be published or broadcast. That right, in this context, is sheer patronage.

why should he not loan that spot to an upstanding citizen of the US who has something important she wants to say?

So, Helen Thomas next week? Would she have to fill out an application form?
posted by holgate at 9:14 PM on November 18, 2001

I hesitated using the word "responsibility" in regard to the presidential radio address, Steven Den Beste, understanding that it's a custom and not a legally recognized function, but it is on the president's schedule every Saturday, without exception, so, hey.

And rebeccablood, I have no doubt the decision to have LB give the radio address was run by the political prognosticators several times. It was what I perceive to be Dowd's reduction of that decision to nothing more than a crass political calculation that I was taking offense to. While there was political calculation, I believe it to have been of the best kind: trying to exert our influence on public opinion regarding the (mis-)treatment of Afghan women.

And finally, raysmj, Dowd strikes me as leftist as they come (not that there's anything wrong with that). And while she may have turned on Slick Willy, as did a great many Democrats, she has been brutally unrelenting in her scorn for Dubya. (As was her paper, in my opinion and many others', pre-Sept. 11.) Even in her column about Bush's celebrated speech of Sept. 20 to Congress, which was the most positive of anything I'd read by her regarding No. 43, she let loose a couple earth-scorching zingers. The woman just can't hate Bush enough, it seems. (I'm all for criticism -- isn't that what MeFi, in a constructive sense, is all about? -- it's just the dogmatic, knee-jerk, oh-so-predictable attacks I find boringly banal.)

BTW, holgate, are you genuinely averse to LB having taken a rare turn at giving the radio address this past week? And if so, why? I don't think it's a devious thing that that was done; your tone gives me the impression you feel otherwise.
posted by verdezza at 9:41 PM on November 18, 2001

I don't believe I said that Laura Bush, or anyone else, had a right to that radio spot. The point is that I still haven't seen any explanation of why it was wrong for President Bush to let his wife have the microphone. She isn't acting "presidential" when she does that; she's speaking as a private citizen. It's not a right for her to have access to that microphone, but it is equally not illegal or immoral for her to take advantage of it when the opportunity arises.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 9:50 PM on November 18, 2001

verdezza, I just note the shrill yappering of the American right whenever Hillary Clinton opens her mouth. And of course, she's an elected representative now, but that apparently makes no difference. Perhaps I'm rather mindful of the fact that Mrs Blair also does her speaking professionally, as the barrister Cherie Booth, rather than whenever it's deemed politically expedient for a woman's voice to be heard. Double standards? Surely shome mishtake.

She isn't acting "presidential" when she does that; she's speaking as a private citizen.

And she could have made a commercial, or phoned a radio talk show, or recorded a five-minute spot on a DC public-access cable channel. But no, it's "And now, instead of the weekly Presidential address, here's Mrs Bush"? There aren't many private citizens who've done that in the past. So while she doesn't speak with executive authority, her speaking in a certain place at a certain time gives her words symbolic authority. After all, on a much less significant level, it's still "ABC World News With Peter Jennings", even if another anchor is standing in for ol' Pete. The programme acquires part of its value through the name of the anchorman. And the rarity value of her speaking in place of the President makes it even more symbolic. As I said, I hope there's an application form for other "upstanding citizens with something important to say". Or even better, sell lottery tickets for the disaster relief fund, and offer the weekly address to the winner.
posted by holgate at 10:05 PM on November 18, 2001

verdeeza: Marueen Dowd never "turned" on Clinton. She never liked him, and her columns on Bill were consistently vicious. I'm afraid you don't like the shoe being on the other foot now. And if arguing for more human rights and gender equality in Saudi Arabia is wrong and "leftist," then count me in as a wrongheaded leftist. She could have easily gone a lot further. (She could have been more friendly to Laura B. about it, but then again she wouldn't have pulled punches on Hillary.) For once, I'm fairly impressed with Maureen, who's spent too much of her time in the past year or so acting cutesy and inanely "urbane" about "Sex in the City," retro dating styles and the like. (Her style often strikes me as cold, and too clever by half. Makes me pine for Russell Baker.) She also wrote a highly complimentary, almost fawning article about Bush about a month and a half ago - just for the record.
posted by raysmj at 10:16 PM on November 18, 2001

Well, it's not just the American right that yappers shrilly when Hillary Clinton opens her mouth, holgate. On a personal level, I find her graceless droning intolerable. And politically, I think she's a real downer, bordering on anti-American. No, I don't think you have to be a spastically perky card-carrying member of "Up With People" to come across as a "red-blooded American," whatever that is. She's just someone I can't stand, someone I'd put in the same category as Al Sharpton, Jerry Falwell, Trent Lott, and a handful of other strange bedfellows who make my blood curdle. I mean, you have to admit, Hill's a very polarizing figure; that's simply a matter of record. I don't think people apply a "double standard" to her as much as some people simply dislike her for personal, intangible reasons.
posted by verdezza at 10:31 PM on November 18, 2001

I'm afraid you don't like the shoe being on the other foot now.

'Scuse me, holgate? I don't presume to know your political bent; what the hell makes you think you know mine?

BTW, I'd never read Maureen Dowd until about a year ago. Don't know her record on Clinton; I'm taking your word for it. But if the "almost fawning article [she wrote] about Bush about a month and a half ago" is one other than the Sept. 20 follow-up I referred to, I'd like to see it.

Most importantly, if you'd like to point out where exactly I in any way gave the impression that I think "more human rights and gender equality in Saudi Arabia is wrong," or that being "leftist" is wrong, please do so. The truth is, of course, that you can't, and you were more interested in generating heat than light in suggesting so.
posted by verdezza at 10:45 PM on November 18, 2001

Very, very sorry, holgate; my last post (just above) was in response to raysmj's post. My bad, my apologies.
posted by verdezza at 10:49 PM on November 18, 2001

I don't think people apply a "double standard" to her as much as some people simply dislike her for personal, intangible reasons.

Well, if you're stuck with no more than "personal, intangible reasons" for why Hillary's a "real downer", I'm afraid it's your own problem. And basing judgements on such criteria seems to me the very definition of a double standard: one person gets away with what another does not, simply because of "personal, intangible reasons" that distribute sympathy and antipathy accordingly. You're not considering a career as a judge, are you?
posted by holgate at 10:54 PM on November 18, 2001

Oh, holgate, holgate, holgate. You brought up HRC...

I just note the shrill yappering of the American right whenever Hillary Clinton opens her mouth. And of course, she's an elected representative now, but that apparently makes no difference.

...and all I was trying to point out is that people don't make judgments of others based purely on objective data. (And that it's not only people on "the American right" who apparently dislike her.) The woman in question doesn't exist on paper; she's a living, breathing person, with strengths and deficits -- some of whose strengths some would even perceive as deficits, and vice versa. In being human in my assessment of her, subject to the whims of my likes and dislikes, I'm guilty as charged. Just don't mistake my dislike of a particular person as disdain for any category that person may fall into. (Neither should anyone mistake my dislike of someone as being permanent, never subject to change, or as something that would necessarily preclude me from voting for or somehow otherwise supporting them.) I'm not anti-women (or women-in-power), anti-democrats (or republicans), anti-blond-haired-people, anti-former-Arkansas-residents, anti-lawyers (hmmm... well... no ;), etc. To me, that's more of what a double standard is about: prejudice against someone not because of who they are individually, but because of "what" they might represent to you categorically.
posted by verdezza at 11:51 PM on November 18, 2001

verdezza: It's the Sept. 20 one, I belive, or else I'm mixing it up with Rudy-praising column (both were so popular there for a while). She's just always been snarky about everyone in office. She hated Gore. She was astoundingly hard on Gore during the fall of 2000. Very sure that I remember that quite accurately. As far as the rest . . .

And even though Mrs. Bush's topic for the day is about liberating Afghan women, Ms. Dowd complains that Mrs. Bush has failed by not talking about all women's rights, everywhere.

She almost definitely would have been as biting if Hillary had said the same sort of thing. It's insensitive (Laura's not a pro or an official here), but not partisan. As far as the political calculatoins bit . . . I dunno, though, mabe it was, y'know, if only a little bit, maybe? Stranger things have happened. Dowd could have handled things better, I think, but it's true that the U.S. has ignored violations of human and gender rights in other countries for years. Example: Iraqi women can wear mini-skirts and serve in government, as I understand it. Kuwaiti women can't. Sheesh, the last holdouts in the west gave women the right to vote in the 1970s.
posted by raysmj at 12:35 AM on November 19, 2001

Yikes! I posted the above link to the Telegraph story which had Osama say "I did it," because we appeared to be talking about it without referencing it.

I posted a link to Maureen Dowd's column after reading kittyloop's excellent link-filled comment about women and Afghanistan's future. A reporter friend once told me that the function of opinion columnists is to irritate readers, not to write well-balanced stories--those belong in the news section.

Finally, I want women everywhere to have the freedom to choose how they live, which includes wearing burqas or mini-skirts or jeans, as they please.
posted by Carol Anne at 4:36 AM on November 19, 2001

That's one example of a possible motivation. Does anyone have any other theories?

dlewis: If Bin Laden admitted his guilt, it would be easier for the U.S. to build (and maintain) the coalition determined to bring him and Al Qaeda to justice.

Also, it has been reported that for years, Bin Laden has rarely slept more than an hour or two a night and moved constantly to avoid capture or assassination. I think it's just as likely he does what he does because his mind has completely jumped the rails.
posted by rcade at 5:45 AM on November 19, 2001

To me, that's more of what a double standard is about: prejudice against someone not because of who they are individually, but because of "what" they might represent to you categorically.

And isn't that distinction itself a double standard? No?
posted by holgate at 6:00 AM on November 19, 2001

Thank you, both raysmj and Carol Anne, for helping me to understand and better (maybe for the first time!) appreciate Maureen Dowd... :-)

holgate, yes, you're right, because I made the mistake of using the word "prejudice" in that line in a careless manner, that statement, as it stands, does demonstrate a "double standard." In all of my other statements on the subject though, I believe I made it quite clear that my stand was against prejudice. But let me make it again, more specifically.

If prejudice means, literally, to "pre-judge" someone, based, usually, on some sort of outward indication -- more than likely physical features or demographic profile or something of that sort -- then "prejudice" is another, blunter way of saying "double standard." The "personal opinion" filter that I'm talking about applying (and that I think, in truth, we all apply when we're on our best behavior) is the opposite of "pre-judgment": it's a judgment based specifically and solely on my prior history with that individual, not merely with that individual's "type", or what someone else has told me to think about said person. It is, literally, a "post-judgment," based on my past personal history with that person.

As far as the broader topic of "double standards" in general -- if you or anyone else would like to weigh in with a more enlightened explanation of what constitutes one, I'd certainly be interested.
posted by verdezza at 10:33 AM on November 19, 2001