avelloso.com

Terça-feira, Setembro 25, 2001

Justice, Not Appeasement
Uma excelente refutação do estatismo hobbesiano - intimamente relacionado à defesa dos bombardeios de não-combatentes e operações globais antiterroristas - em artigo de Gene Callahan:
"The state is introduced as a deus ex machina to hoist such moral issues from the stage of human conduct into an ethereal realm of 'statecraft'. The state posits itself as the prime enabler of human cooperation, thus exempt from the ordinary moral practices to which individuals adhere. Thomas Hobbes can be regarded as a prominent apostle of this view of the state.
"Hobbes showed that, in a 'state of nature' – human life without ordered society – humans are faced with what we, today, might call a game theory problem. Say that isolated humans Ug and Og both hunt in the same woods. If Ug sees Og with a nice rabbit, what is to stop him from splitting Og's head open with a stone axe and taking his catch? More generally, how can they trust each other to keep any agreement to live peacefully together, when it seems the only way to be sure of 'winning' is to get the other guy first? To solve their problem, says Hobbes, they agree to let a third fellow, Gor, resolve all disputes, including those between himself and Ug or Og, on a permanent basis. He will be their chief, and they give him all of their axes. Gor has become a proto-state. The essence of his status as a state is that the rules he applies to others do not apply to him.
"In 'The State', Anthony de Jasay argues that Ug and Og have not solved their game theory problem at all. If they could not work out any way to trust each other without giving Gor extraordinary power, then how can they possibly trust Gor after he has been granted such extraordinary power and has all the big weapons?
"Despite his exalted status, Gor must still be on guard against Ug and Og deciding they've had enough of his rule, and uniting against him. Several means serve this end.
"One is to keep the people under state rule divided. The state's interactions with its subjects will create special interest groups, and the state will attempt to maintain a coalition of groups who feel they are benefiting from state-granted privilege that is more powerful than any coalition of those who feel they are not so benefiting.
"Another means is ceaseless propaganda about the benefits of state activities. (Compulsory public education is obviously one excellent medium for such propaganda.) Ideally, as a result of such propaganda, the populace will adopt several notions that serve to cement state rule. One is that the state is really 'all of us'. Here, democracy has served as a good means to spread this belief. (If you think it is true that the state is all of us, then I recommend trying to take one of 'our' fighter jets out for a spin one day.)
"The state is also motivated to convince us that we are besieged by enemies, and that only it keeps these wolves from our door. Clearly, terrorism serves the latter project extremely well: see, for instance, the movie 'Brazil', or Umberto Eco's essay 'Striking at the Heart of the State'."
postado por Alvaro Velloso 4:30 PM

Esquerda terrorista
Esqueçam o resto da entrevista de Daniel Aarão Reis a Elio Gaspari (um monte de lugares-comuns sobre o atentado terrorista). O que vale notar é que ele reconhece qual o papel efetivamente desempenhado pela esquerda durante o regime militar:
"As ações armadas da esquerda brasileira não devem ser mitificadas. Nem para um lado nem para o outro. Não compartilho a lenda de que no fim dos anos 60 e no início dos 70 nós (inclusive eu) fomos o braço armado de uma resistência democrática. Acho isso um mito surgido durante a campanha da anistia. Ao longo do processo de radicalização iniciado em 1961, o projeto das organizações de esquerda que defendiam a luta armada era revolucionário, ofensivo e ditatorial. Pretendia-se implantar uma ditadura revolucionária. Não existe um só documento dessas organizações em que elas se apresentassem como instrumento da resistência democrática. No reverso da moeda, nenhuma organização defendeu o terror indiscriminado, nem praticou ações que, na concepção, tivessem o objetivo de ferir ou matar pessoas que não tinham nada a ver com nada. O terror indiscriminado não faz parte da história da esquerda brasileira. Houve atos violentos, criminosos, como a ordem da direção do Partido Comunista, em 1936, para que se matasse a jovem Elza Fernandes. Supunha-se, erradamente, que ela tivesse colaborado com a polícia. Houve também o assassinato de um marinheiro inglês, em 1973, pelo simples fato de ser marinheiro inglês. Nessa época matou-se até um militante que desejava apenas sair da organização em que estava. Chamava-se Márcio Leite Toledo. Foram atos praticados por uma militância em processo de degeneração. Ainda que tenham existido organizações na esquerda brasileira defendendo a prática de ações terroristas, não houve uma só que propusesse coisa parecida com o que ocorreu em Nova York e ocorre toda vez que Bin Laden fala em matar todos os americanos, sejam civis ou militares. Eu o ouvi dizendo isso na televisão."
Enquanto Aarão Reis diz que a esquerda brasileira gosta de terrorismo - daí, aliás, a relutância de alguns de seus membros em condenar os atentados aos EUA -, mas não com a mesma paixão (ou o mesmo "extremismo") de bin Laden, Silio Boccanera, cuja ausência ainda é sentida no "Globo" mas que está escrevendo regularmente para o site da Globo News, lembra, em ótimo artigo (descontada a referência aos "cristãos sanguinários") que a esquerda legou lições importantes para os terroristas islâmicos, lições que tornam mais difícil a investigação dos atentados e o combate ao terrorismo:
"Essa rede de militância islâmica tem o fervor dos cristãos sanguinários da época das Cruzadas e se espalha por vários países de população muçulmana - da Argélia à Indonésia. E vai além, infiltrando-se por várias cidades através do mundo. Ao melhor estilo guerrilheiro (lições de Guevara, Giap ou Marighella), distribuem-se em células independentes, atuando sem um comando único, que poderia torná-las mais vulneráveis. Se uma 'cai', a outra se isola e sobrevive. Enfrentar este adversário sem rosto - terrorismo ou narcotráfico - exige mais tempo, paciência, empenho e educação, do que apenas cortar a cabeça do bicho-papão mais conhecido, chame-se ele Pablo Escobar ou Bin Laden."
postado por Alvaro Velloso 4:24 PM

Full-Text Classics: Find and Download Books - LibrarySpot.com Feature
Dicionários, romances, clássicos... esse site é uma maravilha, a ser acrescentado aos Bookmarks e visitado com freqüência.
postado por Alvaro Velloso 4:14 PM

Segunda-feira, Setembro 24, 2001

Ainda os fascistas
Palavras de John T. Flynn, um dos principais jornalistas da Velha Direita, em 1944:
"The test of fascism is not one’s rage against the Italian and German war lords. The test is – how many of the essential principles of fascism do you accept and to what extent are you prepared to apply those fascist ideas to American social and economic life? When you can put your finger on the men or the groups that urge for America the debt-supported state, the autarchial corporative state, the state bent on the socialization of investment and the bureaucratic government of industry and society, the establishment of the institution of militarism as the great glamorous public-works project of the nation and the institution of imperialism under which it proposes to regulate and rule the world and, along with this, proposes to alter the forms of our government to approach as closely as possible the unrestrained, absolute government – then you will know you have located the authentic fascist.
"But let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that we are dealing by this means with the problem of fascism. Fascism will come at the hands of perfectly authentic Americans, as violently against Hitler and Mussolini as the next one, but who are convinced that the present economic system is washed up and that the present political system in America has outlived its usefulness and who wish to commit this country to the rule of the bureaucratic state; interfering in the affairs of the states and cities; taking part in the management of industry and finance and agriculture; assuming the role of great national banker and investor, borrowing millions every year and spending them on all sorts of projects through which such a government can paralyze opposition and command public support; marshaling great armies and navies at crushing costs to support the industry of war and preparation for war which will become our greatest industry; and adding to all this the most romantic adventures in global planning, regeneration, and domination all to be done under the authority of a powerfully centralized government in which the executive will hold in effect all the powers with Congress reduced to the role of a debating society. There is your fascist. And the sooner America realizes this dreadful fact the sooner it will arm itself to make an end of American fascism masquerading under the guise of the champion of democracy.
"It should be equally clear that all this is in no sense communism.... [A] reason for the confusion is the character of the men who are authentic and honest New Dealers but who were not communists.... They began to flirt with the alluring pastime of reconstructing the capitalist system. They became the architects of a new capitalist system. And in the process of this new career they began to fashion doctrines that turned out to be the principles of fascism. Of course they do not call them fascism, although some of them frankly see the resemblance. But they are not disturbed, because they know that they will never burn books, they will never hound the Jews or the Negroes, they will never resort to assassination and suppression. What will turn up in their hands will be a very genteel and dainty and pleasant form of fascism which cannot be called fascism at all because it will be so virtuous and polite." (As We Go Marching [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1944], pp. 252-255.)
postado por Alvaro Velloso 4:31 PM

The lesson of history: Afghanistan always beats its invaders
"[His] followers 'should not escape ... penalty and ... the punishment inflicted should be such as will be felt and remembered ... All persons convicted of bearing a part [in the murders] will be dealt with according to their deserts'."
Quem disse isso? George W. Bush? Não. O "he" em questão é o Amir Sher Ali Khan, de Kabul, e essa é a declaração de guerra dos ingleses contra seu antigo aliado, em 1878:
"Until 1878, we had thought the Amir Sher Ali Khan of Kabul was our friend, ready to fight for the British Empire – just as a man called Osama bin Laden would later fight the Russians on 'our' behalf – but he forbade passage to British troops and encouraged the robbery of British merchants.
"He had 'openly and assiduously endeavoured ... to stir up religious hatred against the English,' our declaration of war had announced on 21 November, 1878. The Amir's aiding and abetting of the murder of the British Embassy staff was 'a treacherous and cowardly crime, which has brought indelible disgrace upon the Afghan people,' Sir Frederick Roberts announced in 1879 when, yet again, the British had occupied Kabul."
No artigo acima, Robert Fisk relata o que aconteceu com as tropas inglesas que invadiram o Afeganistão depois da exaltada declaração de guerra.
postado por Alvaro Velloso 4:25 PM

Pobres tubarões...
Essa é só para nos lembrar que existem coisas tão dementes quanto a defesa do terrorismo pela esquerda e a defesa dos bombardeios indiscriminados pela direita. Carta no Globo de hoje:
"Tubarões atacam perto das praias porque o homem destrói seus hábitats naturais, acabando com suas fontes de alimentos. O bicho vai procurar presas e confunde banhistas com focas. Importante: nós é que estamos invadindo o hábitat dos tubarões e não eles o nosso."
Nós, humanos, temos a ousadia, a cara-de-pau, de levar nosso imperialismo inter-específico para as praias, e ocupamos um espaço que, por direito, é dos tubarões; quando os pobres coitados vêm procurar focas para matar, só encontram a nós, e nos matam POR ENGANO. Vamos, então, deixar os ambientalistas e os tubarões felizes, e acabar de uma vez por todas com essa abominável prática de ir à praia...
postado por Alvaro Velloso 4:19 PM

Domingo, Setembro 23, 2001

The Mother of Tragedy
Trechos selecionados de (mais) um imperdível artigo de Joseph Sobran:
"Wars are generally launched by governments that think they can win quick victories. Without the ballast of caution and pessimism, they adopt battle plans that seem like sure things, with blitzkriegs, surgical strikes, and minimal losses.
"Even when a war keeps stretching on longer than expected, the hawks think they see the light at the end of the tunnel. The more they invest in wasteful conflicts, the harder they find it to cut their losses and come home. As their original plans are frustrated by events, they switch from fatuous optimism to the fatuous patriotism that says we must 'support our boys', no matter how many of 'our boys' may die. Opposing the war becomes disloyalty and treason; admitting that the war was a mistake in the first place, and reversing the initial decision, become well-nigh impossible.
"'Experience keeps a dear school', Benjamin Franklin observed, 'but a fool will learn in no other'. Unfortunately, most people flunk even in that costly school. After the history of the twentieth century, you’d think they would be extremely wary of allowing more centralization of power in the state. But the shibboleths of limitless government – 'democracy', 'human needs', 'compassion', 'defense', et cetera – usually disarm prudence. (...)
"Because the future is profoundly unknowable, our best defense against tyranny is often the courage to obey our vaguest premonitions – or to maintain what even the gentle and cheerful G.K. Chesterton called 'a healthy bigotry'. Yet we are constantly buffaloed by glib leaders who are confident that they not only know what is going to happen, but can control events. There is no more serious delusion than that. Optimism is the eternal mother of tragedy.
"The man who claims he can foresee and direct the future is a fool. The only greater fools are those who trust him enough to give him power."
postado por Alvaro Velloso 1:35 PM

Glory days for government
Na Veja desta semana, o repórter que entrevista Paul Johnson lhe pergunta se há o risco de, como afirmou Gore Vidal, os EUA se transformarem num "Estado policial". Antes de dizer que a questão não tem importância (!), Johnson responde com o desprezo habitual a Vidal e os elogios habituais à força das "instituições" americanas (como se instituições fossem as responsáveis pela liberdade):
"Gore Vidal é um extremista que ninguém mais leva a sério. Ele sempre vem com essa história, e todo mundo de bom senso o ignora. Não há perigo de os Estados Unidos se transformarem num Estado policial. Suas instituições democráticas são fortes demais. E acho que as agências de investigação vão conquistar mais poderes não por causa de uma conspiração da elite, mas porque os americanos se deram conta de que suas amplas liberdades não devem servir para que terroristas, aproveitando-se delas, possam armar durante dezoito meses seguidos uma enorme operação assassina como aquela que acabamos de presenciar. As preocupações de Vidal passam ao largo do debate verdadeiramente importante que está se desenrolando agora: qual a retaliação adequada para o crime cometido pelos terroristas e como ela será feita."
Johnson é um historiador admirável em vários aspectos, mas tende a uma visão estatista da democracia e tem o ponto fraco de todo neoconservador, o gosto pela guerra e o imperialismo (mesmo a agressão da OTAN na Sérvia, criticada por muitos neoconservadores americanos, foi apoiada por Johnson), esquecendo como o Leviatã sempre anda de mãos dadas com ambos.
Melhor ouvirmos a palavras de alguém que estudou o assunto - Robert Higgs, autor de "Crisis and Leviathan", livro sobre como as "crises nacionais" ao longo do século XX foram usadas pelo Estado para aumentar o tamanho e a extensão de seus poderes. Em entrevista a Michael Lynch, da Reason, Higgs explica a tese central de seu livro:
"In a nutshell, [the thesis of my book is] that when a crisis of major significance occurs--something as large-scale and pervasive as the Great Depression or the World Wars--there's an overwhelming public demand for government to act. In the 20th century, every national emergency has seen federal government take unprecedented action to somehow allay the perceived threat to our security. These actions have taken a great many forms, but the common denominator is that they all entail the increased exercise of power by government over society and the economy. When the crisis ends, many of the emergency actions cease. But not all of them. Each emergency ratchets up the size and scope of the federal government. In some cases, agencies that had a very strict relation to the emergency transform to take on new missions."
Depois de dizer que a atual crise é considerada grave o suficiente para causar novos aumentos desse tipo, Higgs diz quais são as áreas em que podemos esperar crescimento do Leviatã desta vez:
"We can expect thousands of reservists to be called to active duty and taken away from their ordinary jobs. We can expect the assignment of military forces to some unprecedented duties. It appears that some military units are going to be used for domestic police activities. It is clearly going to be the case that the FBI will become far more active in surveillance activities. The government will mount a variety of overseas actions requiring the armed forces, and perhaps a number of civilian employees, to attempt to kill, to disable, or to damage what are taken to be terrorist camps, facilities, or cadres. It is also fairly clear that the government is going to have to bail out the airline industry and maybe the insurance industry. When the government takes large-scale, unprecedented actions of this sort, unanticipated consequences always occur. Then the government has to expand even further to deal with those consequences."
Ele explica, ainda, que o governo, como de costume, está adotando a estratégia errada para combater a crise:
"The whole concept of wiping out terrorism is completely misguided. It simply can't be done. Terrorism is a simple act for any determined adult to perpetrate no matter what kind of security measures are taken. I suspect that after the government finishes making its show [of force] in the next few weeks, it will only inspire new acts of terrorism--if not immediately, then eventually. If the government was really serious about diminishing the amount of effective terrorist acts, it would set about creating a global corps of truly unsavory informants on the ground. But it's never shown in the past that it's had the wit to do that. I don't expect it to have the wit to do it this time. I expect to see a lot of huffing and puffing, calling up troops, dropping bombs and missiles, and maybe this time even sending in special forces for attacks on one group or another. But this is all politics. It's not going to make a dent in the genuine threat of terrorism."
Em vista das novas tecnologias de supervisão e de declarações recentes e propostas políticas do secretário de justiça John Ascroft mostram que as preocupações de Vidal e Higgs, se podem efetivamente ser "sem importância" para os filofascistas, estão longe de ser absurdas ou improváveis. O International Herald Tribune relata o seguinte:
"Security experts in the United States are describing a new kind of country that could emerge, where electronic identification might become the norm, immigrants might be tracked far more closely and the airspace over cities like New York and Washington might be off-limits to all civilian aircraft.
"Attorney General John Ashcroft outlined several proposals Monday, saying, 'We should strengthen our laws to increase the ability of the Department of Justice and its component agencies to identify, prevent and punish terrorism'.
"The proposals he described included measures that would give law enforcement officials expanded electronic surveillance powers and new powers to seize the assets of suspected terrorists.
"Since the attacks, Congress has been acting on proposals to make wiretapping of computers easier, and a flood of measures is expected that will loosen restrictions on what effectively is domestic spying.
"Legal experts say that the courts are unlikely to impose many restrictions on Congress's security decisions.
"As a result, they say, the country can adopt security measures as stringent as its people will tolerate politically or will support financially."
Essas são ou não medidas de um Estado policial?
Elas devem ser, ainda, combinadas com as medidas econômicas de Alan "Easy Money" Greenspan e com o cheque em branco que o Congresso deu ao presidente para a adoção de atitudes contrárias ao terrorismo e aqueles que "colaboraram" com o terrorismo. Sobre este decisão (a resolução de 15 de setembro), Chris Floyd, no Moscow Times, afirma:
"An extraordinary document, unprecedented in U.S. history. Although modeled on the Tonkin Gulf resolution that opened the spigots for the Vietnam War, and on the narrowly passed measure that belatedly gave George Bush I constitutional cover for the vast army he had already marshaled in the Persian Gulf, the emergency powers awarded last week to George Bush II surpass anything yet seen in the American republic. (...) Yet there was nary a peep out of the modern guardians of the Republic in the Senate as they voted Caesar this dictatorial power. For note carefully that it is Bush alone who decides who is a terrorist; it is Bush alone who decides what constitutes the 'aiding' of terrorism."
E os "sábios" conselheiros do presidente nos think tanks neoconservadores e na imprensa já lhe apresentaram sua definição de terroristas (por aqui, alguns chegam perto de sugerir que o presidente deveria usar seus novos poderes para jogar umas bombinhas nos "anti-americanos" das nossas universidades, que "apoiaram" e, portanto, foram cúmplices - por métodos mediúnicos - nos atos terroristas):
"For these wise guides have been busy defining just who is a terrorist -- and a terrorist sympathizer. In U.S. newspapers, on radio and television, in weighty journals, they're naming and shaming the guilty. The list is long: Anyone who criticizes the president in this time of crisis. Anyone who has ever criticized him before. Anyone who gives information to the American people about what has happened to them and what is being done in their name -- including a conservative senator like Orrin Hatch, who was publicly slapped down by the White House for speaking without permission. Anyone who suggests that there may be a complicated historical context to the tragedy, one in which America is not entirely without a tincture of culpability for helping create the scenario that belched forth this hell.
"All of these constitute a 'fifth column', an 'internal enemy', a 'corps of traitors', we are told by Bush's patrons and mentors. Every day, they pour this poison into Caesar's ear -- but we must trust that he's not listening. We must trust that although he has always believed and embraced their Talebanic precepts before, he will now, miraculously, discard them.
"We must trust that Caesar will only sip at the cup of power that's been given him, just enough to rouse his spirits without disordering his senses. For it's entirely up to him now; Congress has abandoned its ancient duty to represent the people. If he decides you're a terrorist -- you are. If he decides you helped them -- you did. Vengeance is his; he will repay."
Grandes instituições democráticas.
postado por Alvaro Velloso 1:30 PM

U.S. May Be Refocusing on Iraq
Atendendo ao Mossad e a boa parte da direita neoconservadora e resolvendo sérios problemas logísticos criados por um eventual bombardeio ao Afeganistão, os EUA começam a voltar suas atenções para o Iraque - embora não haja nenhuma evidência de envolvimento direto do Iraque nos ataques e embora esse envolvimento seja pouco provável, dado o alto grau de atenção dos serviços de inteligência americanos ao país. Relata a Stratfor:
"Despite the pledge by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to cooperate, it is unclear whether he can honor that pledge and whether U.S. forces there would be sufficiently secure. In any case, mounting a sustained, punishing air campaign against Afghanistan is seen as extremely challenging logistically.
"One of the goals of bin Laden and his followers is to demonstrate the limits of American power and the ability of the Islamic world to resist the United States. An inability to mount a meaningful air campaign against countries that host terrorist groups would undermine American credibility and prove bin Laden's point.
"The United States is left with a dilemma. Washington must strike out at countries that support terrorism. But if Afghanistan is deemed the host country for last week's attackers, an air campaign of any magnitude against it will strain or exceed U.S. capabilities. U.S. planners have wrestled with this issue since Sept. 11.
"One solution is to expand the set of countries considered hosts, which is what the United States has done in the past couple of days. Leaks from inside the intelligence community have shifted the focus away from Afghanistan, to some degree, and toward Iraq. And on Sept. 19 a major deployment of U.S. aircraft was sent to the Persian Gulf. It would be much easier to fly missions against Iraq than against Afghanistan from bases in the Persian Gulf.
"The Israelis argued from the beginning that Iraq was deeply involved in last week's attacks, but their claims were a bit suspect because of their interest. They badly want Iraqi President Saddam Hussein crushed and his weapons of mass destruction -- existing or potential -- obliterated. They also do not want to see the United States enter into a dependent relationship with Pakistan. With all these factors in mind, Israel's claims of Iraqi culpability were given second place to Afghanistan. (...)
"A more likely scenario is that, in the course of their careers, some of the culprits had contact with Iraqi intelligence, either in Iraq or in a third country. Iraq undoubtedly provided support at various times. In that sense Iraq was certainly a host country.
"But if the operation was planned and executed in conjunction with the Iraqis, then it is extraordinarily hard to imagine U.S. intelligence wouldn't have spotted it. So, while it is reasonable to assume the Iraqis helped bin Laden's forces at times, it's hard to believe they were directly involved in hatching the plot."
Em suma:
"Afghanistan hosted bin Laden. Iraq facilitated his operations at various points. But the fact is that although Washington can bomb Afghanistan, it cannot do so in a truly punishing manner. Iraq, on the other hand, is very convenient for an air attack. Such an attack would have the added benefit of striking at someone who, in the long run, is much more dangerous to American interests than are the Afghanis. Extending the list of nations that supported the attackers from one to two would solve a number of problems for the United States. U.S. strategy is beginning to take shape."
Enquanto isso, surgem justificativas bem ao gosto neoconservador para ocultar o simples fato de que bombardear o Iraque é uma solução mais fácil. Paul Johnson, cuja história dos EUA homenageia todos os presidentes preferidos dos neoconservadores, diz em entrevista à Veja (mais sobre a entrevista em nota acima):
"Ficarei muito surpreso se os Estados Unidos decidirem ir à guerra no Afeganistão. Seria uma escolha perigosa e desnecessária. Já existe um movimento de oposição ao Talibã no país, o que torna mais razoável a hipótese de armar e dar apoio a esse grupo. Acho que os efeitos positivos de uma ação militar voltada contra o Iraque seriam maiores. A substituição da ditadura de Saddam Hussein por um regime democrático seria uma conquista e tanto. A guerra deve ser travada não apenas para exterminar o terrorismo internacional, mas para dar a uma larga porção do mundo algo que ela nunca teve: liberdade. Se os países árabes pudessem ter regimes democráticos, nos quais a voz do povo contasse com canais para se fazer ouvir, o problema do terrorismo tenderia a desaparecer."
É uma maravilha: depois de anos de um bloqueio econômico que matou cetenas de milhares de pessoas, é hora de um bombardeio que introduza a democracia e a liberdade no Iraque. É a maneira neoconservadora (e neo-esquerdista) de construir colôn... perdão, nações, e expandir o imperiali... perdão, a civilização: exterminar boa parte da população e instaurar "mecanismos de governo" sob supervisão da ONU e da OTAN.
postado por Alvaro Velloso 1:04 PM

The Mainstream Media Reaction to the Attacks: Who's Pulling the Strings?
John Sharp, em ótimo artigo, nota que o motivo pelo qual as regras a que a guerra devia obedecer - as regras que garantiam a nobreza dos guerreiros - foram abandonadas foi o fato de a própria noção de guerras honrosas (i.e., guerras defensivas) ter sido abandonada. A doutrina americana da "guerra total", em que os métodos mais brutais são considerados "justos", decorre da própria brutalidade das guerras americanas - guerras tipicamente agressivas, feitas com o objetivo de determinar o modo de vida dos outros povos:
"The dismay over the attacker's audacity in transcending all moral limits in knocking down two buildings filled with civilians, dismay so cogently expressed by Tony Blair on 14 Sep - these 'hideous and foul' events showed that there were no longer any moral limits on their methods of killing or the number of victims... - is a little hard to cope with in light of the West's conscious abandonment of the medieval 'rules of war'. The notion that war is a necessary and even honorable thing in defense of the rights of a nation (or even the rights of God!) and therefore MUST be waged honorably, is a notion that we have willingly, purposefully, and knowingly discarded."
Ele continua notando o irracionalismo dos comentaristas que acusam quem quer que analise racionalmente os ataques de desejar "culpar as vítimas":
"We have never been 'occupied' or had our country invaded by 'peacekeepers.' But for others it is a way of life. Macedonians, Serbians, Iraqis have; and that at the hands of the U.S. or its international front, NATO. Which is not to say that Macedonia, Serbia, or Iraq are flawless countries with populations that have a spotless track record. We can hear the response now - 'they deserve it!' Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if we're capable of sitting in judgment of just what kind of punishment these various populations may or may not deserve, it may then be a classic sign of American hubris that we cannot conceive of someone claiming the right to sit in judgment of us - whether they truly have that right or not. But ultimately the guilt or innocence of the victim populations - ours, or those that are victims of American military might - is not the point. The point is that the weeping and wailing that surrounds this event, justifiably called horrific and shocking, must ring just a bit hollow for those who live through warfare on a daily basis. Belgrade in June of 1999 looked a lot like Manhattan, and yet American sympathy for the war being waged on Belgrade against those attempting to defend themselves from Marxist and Muslim aggression in the form of the terrorist (though US-backed) KLA was non-existent. Not to mention the scenes from Palestine which are eerily similar to Washington D.C. But more on that later. If we lived in a sane country, then, we'd be shocked and appalled at the slaughter of non-combatants, and we'd live by the rules - the violation of which is the source of our anger - by ensuring, as best as reasonably possible, that our response avoided the very crime which provoked our ire. But, as we said in the last issue, this degree of introspection and logical consistence is not part of the American character today. The American mind prides itself on being anti-dogmatic, which is to say, that no Truth above the frail and fleeting world in which humans live and work exists or can be known with certainty to exist. Truth, for Americans, is made by circumstances and necessity. It's NOT true that we cannot bomb Serbia into oblivion 'to weaken the Serbian spirit,' as General Clark explained back in 1999, but it IS true that we will NOT accept the commission of an act of war against ourselves which claims civilian lives. This inconsistency - simply put, a 'double standard' - is so characteristic of the American mentality as to be almost gut-wrenching should we stop to consider it too seriously and too intently."
postado por Alvaro Velloso 12:50 PM