Home | About | Donate

How the US Can Really Combat Radicalism


#1

How the US Can Really Combat Radicalism

Asad AbuKhalil

The US government held yet another conference on how best to combat “Islamic radicalism.” It is interesting that radicalism — even without adding the Islamic adjective, as the Obama administration avoids the label — is applied to only one cultural and religious milieu. Radicalism is thus assumed to be a phenomenon of one culture and one religion. When the US government speaks about radicalism, it ignores the radicalism that prevails in the US Congress or in the US churches. It has only one radicalism and one form of violence in mind.


#2

Let's change "Declare war on" to "oppose." There is no good war.


#3

I do not mean to malign the author and this powerless rant against the American death cult. I submit this first draft of yet another entreaty to my local community to get the parasite political class heads out our collective ass, as an alternative narrative of his above list:

"With the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the military industrial complex (MIC) of the American empire had a panic attack. These true disciples of eternal war and destruction were looking at the evaporation of their reason for existence, and the source of their obscene wealth. No longer could they rely on fear-mongering the American public with the existential threat of communist socialism into lining their already bloated bank accounts with our tax money. The world was in danger of entering a period of – horror of horrors – actual peace.

A collection of the most cynically jaded, most morally bankrupt, and most violently inhumane gurus of eternal war got together and formed a think tank called The Project for the New American Century (PNAC.) They put their pointed little heads together and produced a position paper meant to mimic the official Quadrennial National Security Assessment and shopped the first draft around at the end of the first Gulf War, wherein American air power effectively bombed Iraq back to the stone age. But Iraq was just collateral damage, as the real purpose of that aggression was to expunge the collective American memory of the ignominious defeat of the world’s greatest military machine by pajama-clad guerrillas in the jungles of Viet Nam. That, despite the fact that we killed 3 million of them and poisoned their land into the next century.

The PNAC document, after various revisions, was adopted by the Bush campaign of 2000 in Crawford, Texas as their hidden presidential platform while they blathered on publicly about “compassionate conservatism.” The PNAC document was nothing more than a Christmas wish list of spoiled bullies for all of the new instruments of death and destruction we are now all too familiar with: lethal drones, bunker-busters, the militarization of space, the national surveillance octopus, the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe, and a massive re-tooling and re-arming of all branches of the military.

The authors of the PNAC document regarded the notion of a “peace dividend” resulting from the Soviet collapse as the greatest threat to the entrenched American war empire. Instead they vehemently urged the exploitation of the “unipolar moment” due the victors of the cold war to now bend all of humanity to the American will. But they realized that without some event similar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Americans would be unlikely to raid our collective national wealth to fulfill their death wish list.

How convenient then, that 19 individuals, mainly of Saudi origin, were allowed to enter our country, learned to fly airliners, then deliver just such an attack, and provide the justification for the final militarization of the American empire. And it will be final; whatever dubious moral authority America claimed to possess has disintegrated, and our economic superiority is soon to follow. Most of the rest of humanity is now debating aligning with an obviously greed-crazed, murderously violent hegemon."


#4

This article completely misuses and maligns the word "radical". Please, please, please, Mr. Abu-Khalil, the English word "radical" does NOT mean "extremist" or "violent extremist". It means "one who seeks the roots of things" - in the manner of Thoreau's "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

I and my ideological comrades proudly engage in "radicalism."

ISIL and the like are not "radicals" they are reactionary miscreants and a direct consequence of murderous reactionary US militarism in Iraq.


#5

Yeah, 19 hijackers who had the magical capacity to demolish buildings in violation of the law of gravity. They could issue a Stand Down order, ensure that evidence was quickly gotten rid of prior to any genuine investigation, and they left no debris field outside of the Pentagon or in some Pa. field. Sure.

Anyone who regurgitates that nonsensical official story loses credibility. You wrote a middle of the road "cops and robbers" *(or what Robert Parry describes as "white hats versus black hats") narrative here that ONLY looks at a very narrow piece of the make war (all the time) puzzle.


#6

The toxic stew in the blackest pot


#7

So, becasue of your belief that the collapse of the buildings somehow defied the "law of gravity", it means that the US government did it? How does the logic of that conclusion work? The US government, unlike others, can bypass the "law of gravity"?

If that is the case, it's hopeless! We are all helpless against a supernatural power like the US government!

By the way, can you recite the law of gravity?


#10

Coherent-sounding theory except for this: the Bush-Gore-Rumsfeld troika did not need such complex plotting. Lies, in the name of ultra-patriotism, were enough to lead the nation in any direction they wanted.