The session has just started. You are invited to join us with your questions.
After the session, you may view the whole dialogue in the recent sessions.
Yours,
IslamOnline Live Dialogue Editing Desk
Answer
-
Name
yahya
- United States
Profession
Question
While the world is still saying no to war - Bush and company still believes they are fighting terroriusm and their best way to fight it is by military means and intimidating countries that don't support their efforts. Also, it seems that Bush and company has their own definition of terroriusm - what is your comments regarding this?
Answer
Clearly, the Bush definition of terrorism is one-sided, as is the definition in the mainstream culture here.
An honest definition of terrorism would be "acts of violence against noncombatants for a political purpose."
By that definition, two things become clear: State terrorism is a far bigger problem than terrorism by non-state actors. And the United States, directly and through its client states, is the biggest source of terrorism.
However, even if we take Al-Qaeda-style terrorism as our domain of investigation, it's clear that the "war on terrorism" is an absurd and self-defeating proposition. After Madrid, I wrote an article on this -- “War on Terrorism” Makes Us All Less Safe – http://www.empirenotes.org/spain2.html
In the article, I say that analysts have long understood that US military predominance (and its willingness to use it all over the world) is itself the reason that oppositional groups are moved toward terrorist rather than conventional military attacks
Now, we also see a progression from hard targets -- 9/11, USS Cole, US embassies -- to soft targets -- Bali nightclub, Ashura processions, Madrid trains.
It is impossible to defend all soft targets, so pushing terrorists to attack them is self-defeating.
Name
Thomas
- United States
Profession
Question
If the US and UK went to war after Feb 15 anyway, you couldn't really change anything. So what is the anti-war movement actually achieving?
Answer
Good question. Many people think, and I partly agree, that the strength of the antiwar movement constrained the Bush administration in its military plan.
Initially, it tried fairly hard to keep civilian casualties low -- it didn't really use the much-touted "shock and awe" plan -- not because of moral qualms but because of the anti-war movement.
The movement has also helped to open up political space in this country to push harder on other questions of US imperialism.
But clearly, accomplishments in a really tangible sense are few and far between. It's very hard work to oppose power with people; it will take greater mobilization and sustained commitment.
The anti-war movement may contribute to defeating Bush in November, but that's just a baby step on the larger questions of the occupation and imperialism, of course.
Name
Shabana
-
Profession
Question
Hello sir,
I would like to know what in your opinion is the effect of protests in war time? Do these protests make any difference? If yes, list one such example where public opinion was given attention?
Answer
It's much harder to have an effect in wartime protests.
Direct Action to Stop the War in San Francisco effectively shut down the city for a few days. This had no material effect but a powerful symbolic effect.
At that point, of course, it wasn't really about influencing the administration, which wouldn't have been possible, but rather sending a message to the world.
Now we have a different situation -- a long-term war/occupation.
In such circumstances, protests can make a difference because there's time to build.
One good example is during the Vietnam War. In 1969, as part of Operation Duck Hook, Nixon was thinking about massive bombing of North Vietnam, maybe even using nuclear weapons. The Moratorium, called for October 15, produced a huge outpouring of resistance all over the country. On November 15, protesters were to go to Washington DC. The Nixon administration calculated that it would have difficulty controlling things even if it didn't escalate in North Vietnam, so it didn't.
We didn't know this until decades later, when the records of their deliberations were released.
Name
Abdullah
-
Profession
Question
What kind of a membership base does your organization have? Are we talking about leftists, anarchists, what exactly?
Answer
United for peace and Justice (www.unitedforpeace.org) is a very broad organization. The core organizers come from many different backgrounds -- leftist, anarchist, liberal.
But there are also over 600 organizations around the country, mostly grassroots groups, that are members of UFPJ. They are a slice of America -- mostly white and middle-class, unfortunately, but covering a very broad left-of-center political spectrum.
Many moderates and liberals got politicized over the Iraq war -- for many, it was the first time they ever went to protests and organizing meetings. Some of those people are still with us.
There are also some conservatives who come out to these protests. I've received many letters from people that say things like, "I've voted Republican for 50 years, but no more."
People across the spectrum are angry at Bush's arrogant elitism, strident militarism, and outright dishonesty. The Iraq war is the primary ground that has played out on.
Name
Abjol Miah
-
Profession
Question
Assalamu alaikum,
What is the opinion of scholars in supporting the New Political Party RESPECT. It is anti war and fights for the Justice for people of Palistine.
It may be very good opportunity to get rid of the Labour Party who support the invasion of Iraq!!! Please can someone politically analysize this new party!!!
Answer
I'm sorry, I can't really evalute RESPECT. Clearly, the Labour Party is split over the war on Iraq, and the dissent within its ranks is important. It's unfortunate that Blair seems to have largely controlled that issue.
Name
A.M.
- Egypt
Profession
Question
Don't you think a lot of people will be disappointed enough with the failure of the protests last year to turn out again this year? What can you do to counter this apathy?
Answer
Numbers at these protests are way down. In October, for example, the number was 50-75,000, as opposed to 500,000 in New York on Feb. 15 last year. There are two reasons. One is disappointment and apathy. The other is that many people find the occupation harder to think through as an issue, and one with less visceral appeal.
The hard core of the movement is as much against the occupation as against the war, but you don't make protests of 500,000 with just a hard core.
Unfortunately, the only way I see to generate larger numbers and get attention is to deal with this issue in the context of the election campaign.
Kerry, of course, is in favor of the occupation, so this makes the task very difficult.
I think we can overcome apathy and a feeling of being being disempowered by tying together three issues for people:
One, the occupation and what is actually happening in Iraq. Two, the threat of terrorism and how Bush is exacerbating it. Three, the high military budget, tax cut, and cuts in social services.
This can be done in the context of election-year door-to-door campaigning.
I wrote an article about this a month back -- http://www.empirenotes.org/bushice.html
By the way, please do check out my new weblog, Empire Notes, with daily commentary on these issues -- http://www.empirenotes.org
Name
noureddine
- Belgium
Profession
programmar
Question
Salaam ,
Dear sir, I have the impression that today, while living a war on terror (or Islam), that there are more attacks against the US. Why? Did they awaken the giant?
Answer
If you mean more violent attacks, of course, there aren't any on the US mainland since 9/11. If you mean more political attacks from around the world, that is undoubtedly true.
The giant that has been wakened by the Bush administration's drive to war on Iraq is global public opinion.
The opposition worldwide is a crystallization of many things, including the fact that many parts of the world, like Latin America in particular, are sick and tired of the American New World Order. They've seen its results and they don't like them and the arrogance and cruelty of this administration has brought that out.
If by the giant, you mean the Arab masses, I don't think it's quite happened.
Anti-Americanism is very high, of course, but political mobilization that could change things in that part of the world is not as yet very significant.
If you mean Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, they've been attacking the United States for quite some time. It's actually the United States that played the largest role in facilitating their creation.
Name
Aziz
- Egypt
Profession
Question
What's the point of marches now? They didn't stop the invasion, they didn't stop the war... Iraq is now occupied, and they're already discussing when would be suitable timing for a withdrawal... what the point of demonstrations now?
Answer
Spotty. It mobilized initially in crisis phase. There had been no national anti-war organization that could mobilize all sectors of dissent and as soon as one was created (UFPJ), it concentrated on the big demo on Feb 15 and another huge one on March 22 (300,000 in New York).
After that, it had to regroup, create a democratic national structure, and work out a long-term strategy.
All of that has been done, but slowly and not always very effectively. It's been a real challenge even getting the resources to keep the organization going.
The primary problem, though, is that it's much harder to reach people now than it was before the war.
They were much more likely to be caught in apathy and despair before and now they're completely focused on the presidential election.
So we could certainly have done better but we're operating in difficult circumstances.
