Post by Moses on Jul 9, 2005 9:36:17 GMT -5
KEEPING WATCH ON THE WASHINGTON POST
From: Elizabeth Dyson
To: Eugene Robinson
Date: 07/08/2005 2:49:12 PM
Subject: your column "Facing Terror on the Tube," 7/8/05 Post [PDPR, July 8]
Dear Mr. Robinson:
I am generally an admirer of your columns, but I was disappointed in your column today regarding yesterday's bombings in London. Like most mainstream media commentators, you seem to have fallen all too easily into three common traps:
1. "This isn't the moment to debate the Iraq war." Why isn't it? Are you hopping on the bandwagon of "let's all support Bush and Blair, gather round the commanders in chief, don't question any foreign policies or acts committed by them that may have helped to provoke the latest attacks?" That seems to me like a head-in-the-sand position guaranteed to lead to further attacks.
2. "Iraq is now ... an incubator and training ground for terrorists, most of whom are motivated by a warped sense of Islamic fundamentalism." I wonder how you are so sure of the motivation of "most" of the terrorists, when many respected analysts have written that we simply don't know who all the terrorists are, and others have argued convincingly that a large number of them are motivated by nationalist sentiments, not religious fundamentalism. On this last point, Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago has done a landmark study, published recently as an op-ed piece in the New York Times, which by and large sank quickly into oblivion and certainly was never picked up by the Washington Post. Georgie Anne Geyer wrote a thoughtful 6/17/05 column discussing his findings, which I forward below at the end of my letter--I hope you will read it.
3. "Somehow we have to wage this fight in a way that doesn't turn it into some kind of clash of civilizations." But it already has been turned into exactly that, with the full encouragement and blessing of the Bush administration. Remember Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the Pentagon general who likened the war against Islamic militants to a battle against Satan and made speeches to that effect at various religiously-oriented events? He is now, according to an article by Caroline Elkins in the July/August Atlantic Monthly, the military assistant of Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence. (Note that The Post, whose editors called for Boykin's firing at the time his incendiary speeches were uncovered, never bothered to follow up on his now-flourishing career.) Also: did you happen to catch Charlie Rose's interview the other night (July 6) with ret. Army Gen. Jack Keane? When asked by Rose whether he had supported the invasion of Iraq, Keane responded firmly that this war was "inevitable," we were always going to have to "get" Saddam Hussein because of "what he would do" on account of "his association with those radical Islamists." I think this interesting statement reflects a pervasive sense among the military, fostered by President Bush, that this is and always has been at bottom a religiously-oriented war (notwithstanding the supreme irony that Saddam's regime was a secular one).
For all these reasons, I respectfully urge you to re-examine the premises of your piece today, most of which are quite in line with what the administration would surely like the American people to believe. Contrary to your assertions, this is indeed the time to debate the wisdom of continuing the American military occupation of Iraq. Insurgents there should not be described as mostly "Islamic fundamentalists" without according equal or greater weight to nationalist interests. And the role of our own government in casting this struggle in religious fundamentalist terms (whether a battle against Satan or of good versus evil) must be held up to the light and exposed.
If we are indeed heading toward a "clash of civilizations," it would be heartening to see some reluctance on the part of the press to follow the Pied Piper so readily over the cliff.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth D. Dyson
Ms. Dyson is a Washington D.C. attorney with a longstanding interest in foreign policy and journalism.
For more information, please visit www.uscpublicdiplomacy.org
From: Elizabeth Dyson
To: Eugene Robinson
Date: 07/08/2005 2:49:12 PM
Subject: your column "Facing Terror on the Tube," 7/8/05 Post [PDPR, July 8]
Dear Mr. Robinson:
I am generally an admirer of your columns, but I was disappointed in your column today regarding yesterday's bombings in London. Like most mainstream media commentators, you seem to have fallen all too easily into three common traps:
1. "This isn't the moment to debate the Iraq war." Why isn't it? Are you hopping on the bandwagon of "let's all support Bush and Blair, gather round the commanders in chief, don't question any foreign policies or acts committed by them that may have helped to provoke the latest attacks?" That seems to me like a head-in-the-sand position guaranteed to lead to further attacks.
2. "Iraq is now ... an incubator and training ground for terrorists, most of whom are motivated by a warped sense of Islamic fundamentalism." I wonder how you are so sure of the motivation of "most" of the terrorists, when many respected analysts have written that we simply don't know who all the terrorists are, and others have argued convincingly that a large number of them are motivated by nationalist sentiments, not religious fundamentalism. On this last point, Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago has done a landmark study, published recently as an op-ed piece in the New York Times, which by and large sank quickly into oblivion and certainly was never picked up by the Washington Post. Georgie Anne Geyer wrote a thoughtful 6/17/05 column discussing his findings, which I forward below at the end of my letter--I hope you will read it.
3. "Somehow we have to wage this fight in a way that doesn't turn it into some kind of clash of civilizations." But it already has been turned into exactly that, with the full encouragement and blessing of the Bush administration. Remember Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the Pentagon general who likened the war against Islamic militants to a battle against Satan and made speeches to that effect at various religiously-oriented events? He is now, according to an article by Caroline Elkins in the July/August Atlantic Monthly, the military assistant of Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence. (Note that The Post, whose editors called for Boykin's firing at the time his incendiary speeches were uncovered, never bothered to follow up on his now-flourishing career.) Also: did you happen to catch Charlie Rose's interview the other night (July 6) with ret. Army Gen. Jack Keane? When asked by Rose whether he had supported the invasion of Iraq, Keane responded firmly that this war was "inevitable," we were always going to have to "get" Saddam Hussein because of "what he would do" on account of "his association with those radical Islamists." I think this interesting statement reflects a pervasive sense among the military, fostered by President Bush, that this is and always has been at bottom a religiously-oriented war (notwithstanding the supreme irony that Saddam's regime was a secular one).
For all these reasons, I respectfully urge you to re-examine the premises of your piece today, most of which are quite in line with what the administration would surely like the American people to believe. Contrary to your assertions, this is indeed the time to debate the wisdom of continuing the American military occupation of Iraq. Insurgents there should not be described as mostly "Islamic fundamentalists" without according equal or greater weight to nationalist interests. And the role of our own government in casting this struggle in religious fundamentalist terms (whether a battle against Satan or of good versus evil) must be held up to the light and exposed.
If we are indeed heading toward a "clash of civilizations," it would be heartening to see some reluctance on the part of the press to follow the Pied Piper so readily over the cliff.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth D. Dyson
Ms. Dyson is a Washington D.C. attorney with a longstanding interest in foreign policy and journalism.
For more information, please visit www.uscpublicdiplomacy.org