I can't, just yet, formulate an adequate reply to/extension of MG's post earlier today, but I'll essay a few disconnected squibs for now:

• This item from the Guardian has been getting a lot of heated response on MetaFilter, for obvious reasons. It elucidates rather bluntly a thesis implicit, I think, in Mike's analysis -- that whatever the response to what happened, we need to recognize our pre-existing involvement in a conflict, not merely with extremists, but with whole peoples. And that the kinds of twisted decisions that lead an individual to kill thousands aren't separable from the historical circumstances of global economic and political inequities.


• The bloodless "Cruise Missles Do It Remotely" formulation of the Powell Doctrine has been, it would seem, discredited by now. Nobody thinks you can solve the problem (or even effectively get revenge) by hurling computer-guided bombs from an incredible distance. But the currently circulating alternative, which seems to be "occupy Kabul by Sunday" is not only unpalatable but, as Mike notes, not productive of convincing results for the long term anyway.


• It is really hard to maintain a civil discussion about these things under conditions of panic, grief and confusion, all of which are currently visiting my adoptive hometown. I don't trust my gut right now: it's been thrown clean out of whack.


• No plan for war makes much sense without a credible plan for the peace to follow. Marshall Plan, or something like it, yes, please. Scorched earth is fertile soil for, among other things, tomorrow's suicide bombers.

Spiraling as we are into quasicoherence, the Gotham office bids you all a quiet and softly-dreamed night.

Posted by B T at September 13, 2001 11:13 PM