Calpundit posts an interesting observation about evolutionary psychology today:
“Evolutionary psychology attempts to explain why we do the things we do, and it succeeds better at some things than at others. But it certainly doesn’t suggest that innate behavior is either moral or desirable. In fact, since the entire goal of civilization for the past 10,000 years has been mostly to rein in and modify innate human behavior, this should be obvious too, and the lessons of EP can help us in this ancient and worthy effort. If research suggests a reason why little boys do one thing and little girls do another, for example, the lesson should not be that we are forced to accept this behavior even if we don’t like it, but that we should try even harder to modify it because it’s probably going to be a real bear getting the job done.
As indeed it is, a lesson we all learn daily. If only all those other guys could just listen to sweet reason…..”
This is interesting and quite true, but it should also be kept in mind that a lot of evolutionary psychology appears to conveniently uphold certain cultural expectations, particularly as it pertains to gender roles. Since the science is far from conclusive, and so much of it is used to buttress arguments favoring traditional roles, I don’t think it’s out of bounds to be skeptical of much of it for the time being. I have no doubt that it is a field well worth studying and that it will eventually provide some interesting insights into our behaviors, but considering the vacuousness of many of the conclusions so far, I am not signing on to any particular theory. I would imagine that we will be seeing some very interesting work coming down the pike in the next few years, however.
For instance, the excellent science writer, Natalie Angier, in her book, Woman: An Intimate Biography unearths numerous exceptions and alternative explanations to the current conventional wisdom that males are biologically driven to spread their seed far and wide while females are biologically driven to need security. DNA studies, for example, show that female chimpanzees risk “life and limb” and the lives of their offspring to cheat on their possessive mates. If women have lower sex drives than men, Angier argues, it may not be the fault of biology: Cultural mores across the centuries have punished women for their carnal interest.
I have to say that I too wondered why, if the conventional view of male/female evolutionary psychology were true, that so many cultures have gone to such great lengths to subdue female sexuality — clitoral circumcision being the most blatant and violent current example?
In any case, I agree with Kevin that evolutionary psychology does not make a value judgment about human behavior, no matter what the conclusion. Science isn’t right or wrong, in a moral sense. It just is. But, this particular science is highly speculative, as is much of the field of psychology generally, so there is no great sin in maintaining a healthy skepticism about its sometimes glaringly “obvious” conclusions. It’s going to be very hard to know how much biology, as opposed to culture, brought us to the point we are today, particularly since evolution is a reaction to environment rather than a cause.
I’m against policy being based upon this science’s conclusions just yet.
It is truly outrageous that our “President” is not required to hold open televised press conferences and that the press does not adequately cover what this dumbass says in the few instances they let him talk.
Yesterday, he met with several news services for about 35 minutes. What he said was un-befucking-lievable.
Some highlights of our fearless leaders “thinking” on various current events:
“The president alternated between humor, determination, sarcasm and reflection throughout the 36-minute session held in the Roosevelt Room, pointedly opening the interview by calling attention to President Theodore Roosevelt’s Nobel Peace Prize on the mantel over a crackling fire.
The prize, he said, ‘is an interesting tribute to a president who had a vision about how to keep the peace and was willing to take risks to achieve peace.’ “
Obviously, Karl or Karen or somebody told Junior that he is going to win the peace prize, like that muscular Teddy Roosevelt, for invading Iraq. TR killed a lot of Fillippinos, to be sure, and he looked mighty good on a horsie, but his “vision” about how to keep the peace was the international tribunal in the Hague, a “League of Peace” and the use of arbitration treaties amongst all nations to avoid war. He won the Nobel for mediating the end of the Russian-Japanese war.
Somehow I don’t think President Legacy knows that. And, apparently, the press wasn’t inclined to ask him just what the hell he meant when he said it. Wouldn’t you think that a reporter would be interested in what the president meant when he talked about an “interesting vision of peace” and “the risks” he was willing to take, on the eve of an unprecedented preventive war? I know I would.
“I believe we can deal with this issue diplomatically by convincing China and Russia and South Korea to join us in convincing North Korea that it is not in their nation’s interest to be threatening the United States.”
But when asked if a diplomatic approach had been successful, the president replied carefully, “It’s in process.”
Reflecting the growing tensions, the president added, “If they don’t work diplomatically, they’ll have to work militarily. And (the) military option is our last choice. Options are on the table, but I believe we can deal with this diplomatically. I truly do.”
One wonders what he would have said if someone had forcefully pressed him on the contradictions between what we see happening with Saddam destroying missiles and what he is saying about North korea. We know how Ari dances around the issue, but I’d love to see Junior try it.
But he insisted that he has paid attention to the protesters.
“Of course, I care what they believe. And I’ve listened carefully. I’ve thought long and hard about what needs to be done,” he said. “And obviously some people in Northern California do not see there’s a true risk to the United States posed by Saddam Hussein. And we just have a difference of opinion.”
There you have it. Smirking smart-ass prick. It always comes through at some point. His essential Nixonness — the barely suppressed disdain for his fellow Americans. He really is not our president. Not because we say so, but because he does.
Asked about protests overseas, the president initially downplayed the extent of the problems he has encountered with normally friendly nations.
“There are two nations in Europe – France and Germany – who do not see Saddam Hussein as a direct threat. And we just have a difference of opinion. But there are a lot of other nations who do,” he said.
But pressed, the president acknowledged that sympathy for America has diminished since the days immediately after Sept. 11, 2001. He blamed some of the protests on lingering unhappiness over his early decisions against international agreements on global warming and an international criminal court.
“So, yes, I see the protests and I know they’re large at times. But I’m not so sure I’d jump to the conclusion that everybody in those parts of the world are anti-American,” he said.
No, they’re anti-Bush, clearly. And, yes his early decisions contributed to the problem, but his biggest problem is that huge majorities of the people in most countries of the world do not support a preventive war with Iraq if inspections are working. He clearly doesn’t understand that he is commander in chief of the Armed Services during wartime, he is not the commander in chief of the American people or the rest of the world at ANY time. This is something they failed to get through to him during his civics all-nighter before the inauguration.
“We’ll be disappointed if people don’t support us [in the security council],” he said pointedly.
With the Mexican press full of a debate over the ramifications of a vote against the resolution, Bush added, “But, nevertheless, I don’t expect for there to be significant retribution from the government.”
His emphasis was on the word “government,” raising the possibility of adverse reaction to Mexico from the American business community and average citizens.
Making that point, he cited what he called “an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French.”
With many Americans unhappy at French resistance to a war in Iraq, the president said there has developed “a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except by the people.”
Nice. The President is lying blatently about the coordinated GOP movement to “punish” France and Germany, even to the extent that congressional representatives and Senators have taken up the cause. It’s a grassroots movement who’s roots begin and end at Grover’s Wednesday meeting. Looks like Mexico is next on the “hate” list (although it’s always been on it with his white supremecist nase.)
What a petty little backbiter he is. And nobody in the press corp says a word.
If Mexico – or other countries – oppose the United States, he said that “there will be a certain sense of discipline.” But he quickly added, “I expect Mexico to be with us.”
Yeah, well people in hell want icewater, too. Last I heard, Mexico was a sovereign nation that was not required to meet the US President’s “expectations” or submit to its “discipline.” Maybe if President Brat hadn’t treated his good friend Vicente like shit, particularly at the meeting in Cabo where he shut down the press conference in a snit, then maybe things would go easier for him. Maybe Vinnie wouldn’t look like Bush’s abused chihuahua. Somebody (Bar?) forgot to teach Junior any manners.
He said he also is sustained by his own prayers, noting, “I’m reading the Bible every day.”
I’m sure that will make a good recruiting slogan for the islamic fundamentalist terrorist movement. It’s a great idea to cite religion as much as possible when we are at “war” with religious fanatics. Let the Bible be our guide. They are on the side of evil, after all, and we shall smite them sayeth the President. Excellent.
He added, “This is a difficult decision for any president to make. I’ve thought about the consequence of doing nothing. I’ve thought about the consequences of military action.”
This is so typically Bush. He tells us he’s thought about all this. And we should be impressed that he has done so. Period. No need to discuss it further. It would be wrong for the press to ask for further explanation of those “thoughts.” Anti-american, in fact. He is their commander in chief, after all.
But he said the blame for any war falls on Hussein for his failure to abide by 12 years of U.N. demands for disarmament.
The president also insisted that his policies on Iraq are based solely on what is good for the United States. He bristled slightly at a question suggesting he was motivated by Hussein’s past attempt to assassinate his father, former President George H.W. Bush, and current first lady Laura Bush in the early 1990s.
“The fact that he tried to kill my father and my wife shows the nature of the man … he’s cold-blooded. He’s a dictator. He’s a tyrant,” said Bush. “And the decision I’m making, and have made, to disarm Saddam Hussein is based upon the security of the American people.”
Asked if he harbored personal anger toward Hussein, he replied, “No. I’m doing my job as the president based upon the threats that face this country.”
Well, guess that clears that up. That “he tried to kill my father and my wife” thing sure will make a nice headline in Arab papers, though, don’t you think?
I take back what I said. He should be kept from the press at all costs. It can only hurt the country to let him speak.
These damned Islamofascists are really starting to get Hitchypoo hot under the collar, especially the democratically elected allies in Turkey. They are humiliating his hero, Captain James T. Bush who is not to be faulted for selling out those Kurds, oh no. (He is, after all, the only man on the entire planet who who sees the world in the same childlike Manichean terms as Hitch.) Those Turks are imperfect and, therefore, are not worthy of our great goodness.
The situation with the Kurds is extremely complicated. Neither the Turks or the Kurds are our enemies (indeed, until recently they were fervent allies) but we have somewhow managed to make them so with just a few stupid words from Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
Of course we shouldn’t let the Turks go in and “clean out” Kurds in northern Iraq. But, neither should we even think of abandoning the only real democracy in the region because…well…I thought that was the whole goddamned point!
It may now be argued that, in order to shorten the period of hostilities with Saddam Hussein and minimize casualties, the Iraqi border should be secured from all directions. But the Turks do not propose to help guarantee this border or to protect those who live within it. Rather, they propose to cross the frontier for no better reason than to aggrandize themselves and to prolong the subjection of their own Kurdish population. This doesn’t just disgrace the regime-change strategy. It actually destabilizes it. And it’s humiliating to see the president begging and bribing the Turks to do the wrong thing and to see them in return reject his offer. He should take their ugly egotism and selfishness as a compliment to his policy, cut off their aid, leave them to put their own case to the European Union, and tell them to get out of Cyprus into the bargain. Then we could be surer that we were really “remaking” the region
Hey, Hitch. Why stop there? Let’s remake the entire world in your image. Then it will be a confused, unkempt, incoherant, aggressive mess.
And yet Mr. Bush not only sounds more certain than ever that he is about to lead the United States into war — he also talks almost as if Mr. Hussein has already been deposed.
In a deliberate and risky strategy, Mr. Bush appears to be dropping out of the public debate over whether there is value in further inspections or any alternative to ousting Mr. Hussein, or sending him into exile.
“The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new government,” Mr. Bush said in his Saturday radio address, skipping past the question of how he plans to remove the current one.
It was one of many phrases, one of his senior aides said this weekend, that “reflect the leapfrog strategy,” an effort to jump over French, German and Russian objections, Turkish intransigence, North Korean provocations, anxiety from the Arab League, and hand-wringing by Americans who are nervous about a go-it-alone approach.
“In his mind, the old debate about whether Saddam will disarm is over,” one of Mr. Bush’s senior aides said late last week. “We’re on to the next phase, even if everyone else isn’t there yet.”
[…]
White House aides argue that the president cannot talk about casualties without scaring Americans. If, however, either the war or — after the presumed American victory — the occupation of Iraq goes badly, such a failure to hint at the problems may come back to haunt the president.
Nonetheless, Mr. Bush has been relentlessly optimistic. In his speech last Wednesday and again on Saturday, he talked of an occupation that would resemble the American liberation of Germany and Japan. But both of those were well-defined nations before their conflict with the United States.
Iraq is not — and could blow apart. “Of course, in our internal discussions we raise the Yugoslavia analogy,” one administration insider said.
“We talk about what happens if there is score-settling. But this isn’t the moment for the president to be talking about that risk.”
It doesn’t seem as if the President is much interested in talking about any risks.
It’s not relentless optimism. As Thomas Carothers of the International Endowment for International Peace said in last Sunday’s NY Times Magazine, “It’s called Magical Realism, Middle East style.”
Celebrated Dada author and diviner of notions, Peggy Noonan, reveals to viewers the intimate thoughts of unwary fares as they motor along with her, in the her magic taxicab, through the busy streets of the nations capitol. This week, Peggy channels the convictions of an aging Republican supply-sider couple visiting from Charlotte North Carolina, who silently long for the bygone halcyon days of right wing latin American death squads, Jim and Tammi’s waterslide and the lost splenders of the Shining City giftshop on the Hill.
Next in the cab is a black couple from Baltimore, who reveal to Peggy, through a series of psychic gospel rhythmns, their soul deep regrets at ever having heard of that philanderer priest Jesse Jackson or Tavis Smiley or the NAACP, and their quiet agonized yearning for the buccolic lost splender of the plantation porch swing.
Next Peggy mirrors for us the supressed regrets of an old hippy who wrestles with horrific naked lunch flashback nightmares of long ago candlelight peace vigils and lurid fleeting Hollywood images of a scantily clad tattooed Goldie Hawn wiggling around like a distempered sex-viperess on the Rowan and Martin Show.
Peggy excitedly babble-channels the expectations of a yet unborn child when an unwed nineteen year old lesbian playwright enters the cab and alarms Peggy with the opinion that Bill Bennett is a fat old patent leather busybody pecksniff with tiny feet and big old stupid sanctimonious puritanical morality fetish. Peggy becomes unglued when the young woman’s twenty year old blonde haired girlfriend from Lincoln Nebraska begins recounting their previous summer adventures bartending at the Pied Piper in Provincetown and their brief encounter with arch media blog-feind Andrew Sullivan and his French sailor-friend who were slobbering over garlic knots in front of Spritus Pizza at 3 am. Now clearly distressed and half crazed with the haunting shrieks and tortured wails of long ago buried Daughters of the American Revolution chickenhawk dinners Peggy unloads the giggling Sapphics in front of the Washington Memorial, takes a couple of swigs of Old Gipper, points her cab at the sniper alley I-66 Western road… and careens through the early autumn night toward an undisclosed secret destination in Fort Royal Maryland.
I have no idea what happened in Fort Royal. My psychic eye has gone dark. I hope the Peggy is ok, all alone out there in the wilds of the Shenandoah, with the roving Marxist wolves of labor and the bong pirates and the camo-hillbillies for a better whup-ass Jesus. We’re praying for you Peggy. Praying like jerkers in the service of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, Rove Inc., Texas and Kennebunkport the forty first, and of Crawford the forty third. Anno Domini, 2003. (or whatever)
“Just when I think I’m out, they pull me back in.”
Via Atrios and reader Matthew Davis I find that my previous post praising the enlightenment of James Pinkerton was so threatening to his position as a member of the Borg Collective that he has gone into full retreat and written the most sickening ecomium to Bush’s heroic manhood since Howard Fineman penned that breathless valentine praising Junior’s magical ability to wear both epualets and ermine.
These guys may be complete failures at running a government, but they are excellent enforcers.
After flying to Tampa to interview him, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote last year that the University of South Florida’s attempt to fire Sami Al-Arian shed light on “what kind of universities we desire, how much dissent we dare tolerate and how we treat minorities in times of national stress.” He noted that the proceedings began after “Bill O’Reilly invited Mr. Al-Arian on his Fox News show and virtually accused him of being a terrorist.”
[…]
O’Reilly says that “we took a lot of heat. And when it comes our way, no fruit basket. We had this guy dead. . . . The game being played now in the media, if you’re in a minority group, is that if you can’t win the debate, you demonize the person reporting the story by calling them anti-whatever. I’m not playing that game.”
I guess they repealed that pesky presumption of innocence thing in the Patriot Act. Or has The O’Reilly Factor been deputized by Ashcroft to act as a fair and balanced military tribunal?
Name of blog notices Safire’s gone all Noonan using the tiresome trope of channeling the dead for convenient conversations supporting their positions. Normal people call this fiction writing, but hey, in this Republican world we live in, it’s called journalism.
Which brings me to La Noonan’s thoroughly bizarre piece today, a “letter” so twisted that I am forced to conclude that this person is in need of some psychiatric intervention of the political kind.
Political Projection is an involuntary process motivated by emotions wherein a person imposes a subjective feeling or a thought on the other political party. Patients like Peggy are unaware of ‘projecting’ or how and why they do it. There is such an emotional need and frustrated feeling involved in such ’emotional-mental’ projection that when you read one of these”advisories,” it’s looking into the psyche of a very wounded and troubled woman.
When read correctly, we can see that Peggy is deeply unhappy with the Republican Party. Let’s try to see beneath the words and help Peggy understand the hidden feelings and emotions that drive her to constantly analyze the Democrats and innappropriately offer her counsel:
“In the Democratic Party now, and for some time, I have not perceived that they are trying to get us to a good place. They seem interested only in thwarting the trek of the current president and his party, who are, to the Democrats, ‘the other.'”
Clearly, Peggy is extremely guilty about the 8 years of coordinated and malicious character assassination that she and others like her perpetrated against the last President.
“You have grown profoundly unserious. This is the result of the win-at-any-cost mindset.”
This is a recurring theme of Peggy’s writings since George W. Bush was anointed to the office of President through a patently legalistic technicality rather than a clear mandate of the people. She is obviously deeply troubled by her driving desire to see the Republicans win by any means necessary in 2000.
“Democratic leaders, on the other hand, have by and large approached Iraq not with deep head-heart integration but with what appears to be mere calculation. What will play? What will resonate?”
Karl Rove has done great damage to Peggy’s fragile psyche with his intervention into the foreign policy of the country for electoral advantage and the obvious political calculations he uses to distance the president from his father, the “wimp.” Peggy is ashamed of her complicity in using GOP talking points and advancing an agenda for purely political reasons. Peggy should stay very far away from Karl, for the sake of her delicate mental health.
“You have become the party of snobs. You have become the party of Americans who think they’re better than other Americans.”
Here we have the case of someone who lives a life far away from the ordinary Americans she purports to represent and who feels that she is betraying her roots. Yet she is also one who quite openly presumes to write this criticism of the 50% of Americans who vote with the other party. She is becoming confused and irritated. Her self-hatred comes to the surface.
Her piece then devolves into a long remembrance of her history, that of a working class girl who became disillusioned with her chosen party because it ceased to care. It stopped being serious. It became radical and rude and mean, forcing old ladies to lose all their money on the bus and taking her hard earned money in taxes. She says,
“All of it came together bit by bit, and I started to become a conservative, and in time a Republican. And for the very reasons that my father was a Democrat.”
Oh my. Are we close to a breakthrough?
But no, she digresses into a long dissertation on gun control and abortion, veritably begging the Democrats to adopt the position of the Republican Party. She says,
“Democratic leaders are radical on abortion because they live in fear of–brace yourself, more snobs coming–a pro-abortion lobby that has money, clout and workers, and that can kill the hopes of any Democratic aspirant who doesn’t toe the line. And that pro-abortion lobby is largely composed of the professionals, journalists, lawyers and operatives who long ago showed such contempt for America.”
Read that again. Journalists, lawyers and operatives who long ago showed such contempt for America. Peggy has just disowned her public self.
She then gives the Democrats some concrete advice:
“Look at the clock. Know what time it is. Half the country is wondering if we are in the end times. (Excuse me, I mean they fear man may be living through a final, wrenching paroxysm, the result of man’s inhumanity to man and of the inevitable culmination of several unhelpful forces and trends.) So wake up and get serious.”
Half of the people are wondering if we are in the “end times.”
The Democrats need to wake up a get serious.
Oh Peggy
“Don’t ‘position’ yourself on issues like Iraq, think about your position on Iraq and be guided by a question: What will be good and right for America and the world? Reach your conclusions and hold to them as long as you can hold them honestly.”
Peggy obviously feels uncomfortable with the myriad lies and distortions that have been told by this administration. She doesn’t like the fact that the administration position is best called the “unilateral-regime-change-disarmament-exile-UN-coalition-of-the-willing-we’ll-go-it-alone-because-they-have-nukes-drones-terrorists-evil-gas-his-own-people-moral-clarity-doctrine-everybody-in-the-whole-world-hates-Bush-Doctrine.”
“Stare down the abortion lobby, the gun-ban nuts, etc. Be moderate. Make progress.”
Peggy is telling the Republican Party that they need to listen to the few remaining moderates in the party. Poor Peggy.
“Be pro-free-speech again. Allow internal divisions and dissent. A vital political party should have divisions and dissent.”
More of Peggy’s discomfort with the mechanical Borg-like message machine of the GOP organization. She remembers a Republican party of old that held views from Rockefeller to Goldwater. Her envy of the diversity and tolerance of a party that holds views from Kucinich to Lieberman is palpable.
“Develop a new and modern Democratic rationale–the reason regular people should be Democrats again. Stop being just the We Hate Republicans Party. That’s not a belief, it’s a tic.”
Those Clinton hating dittoheads are getting on Peggy’s nerves. She’s tired of hearing the daily ranting of those who blame all the problems in the world on “liberals.” She yearns for the day when Republicans can let go of the Neanderthal hatred of the “other.” She hates herself for being part of something so ugly.
“Stop being the party of snobs. Show love for your country and its people–all its people. Stop looking down on those who resist your teachings.”
And by this letter of advice she embodies the very thing she imputes to the Democrats. Has there ever been a woman who was less self aware?
“Stop taking such comfort in Bill Clinton’s two wins. Move on. He was a great political talent, but he won by confusing the issues, not facing them. That’s a trick that tends to work only at certain times and only with powerful charisma… Ask him to stay home. He reminds people of embarrassment. He uses up all your oxygen.”
Peggy has a powerful attraction to Bill Clinton and it discombulates her considerably. She is distracted by his presence and finds it hard to breathe. He makes her think dirty thoughts.
“Stop the ideology. A lot of Democratic Party movers and intellectuals have created or inherited a leftist ideology that they try to impose on life. It doesn’t spring from life; it’s forced on life, and upon people. Stop doing that–it’s what weirdos who are detached from reality do.”
Peggy has truly grown to despise the likes of Grover Norquist, Bill Kristol and Newt Gingrich. The “movement ideologues” make her sick, she thinks they are wierdos who are detached from reality. She feels that they are imposing themselves on her. It would seem that she feels imposed upon by many men. (Although she only describes one as having “powerful charisma.”)
“And by the way, I’d like it if you started smoking again, at least for a while. Democrats were nicer when they smoked. Then they let all those Carrie Nation types in the party beat them to a pulp, and regular Democrats stopped feeling free to be regular flawed messy humans.”
This is a cry for help. Peggy is clearly nearing a suicidal crisis. She feels flawed and messy and horny and she can’t live with it. It may be time for an intervention.
“You’re still one of our two great political parties. Show some class, the good kind. Throw your cap over the wall as JFK said, and boldly follow.”
Yes. Become Republicans. The very existence of the Democratic Party is painful and frustrating to Peggy Noonan.
Earlier in the piece she said the Democrats of the 60’s adhered to the following credo:
“We do not love this place; we prefer leaders unsullied by the grubby demands of electoral politics; we are drawn to the ideological purity of Ho, Fidel, Mao. And by the way we’re taking over: Oppose our vision and we’ll take care of you by revolutionary means.”
These words come from the heart. She does not love this place. She prefers leaders unsullied by such grubby demands of electoral politics as adhering to the notion that a duly elected President should not be “unelected” by a partisan impeachment for a personal indiscretion, or grubby demands that votes be counted. She is drawn to the ideological purity of McCarthy, Father Coughlin, Perle.
And by the way, she’s taking over: Oppose her vision and she’ll take care of you by revolutionary means…like paperless voting machines.
Thank you Matthew Yglesias for blogging what I have been screaming at the television since Saturday in response to the smug argument coming from certain quarters that the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed somehow proves that the US can successfully wage war against Iraq and al Qaeda:
But no. We’re not at war with Iraq right now. And yes, the administration could be more preoccupied with Iraq than it is today. We could, for example, be waging a shooting war against their army which, I hope, would attract some attention. You also need to consider that the bulk of the terrorism-based anti-war argument has to do with the notion that a war will inflame public opinion against us, which really has nothing to do with this arrest.
In fact, one could argue that the high profile arrest, coming on the eve of the invasion may have the exact opposite effect that it is designed to have — that is to cow the tremulous terrorists into throwing up their arms in surrender at the sight of our massive martial superiority.
I am in favor of arresting al Qaeda terrorists and bringing them to justice (and by that I do not mean the kind of justice Judge George W. Bean endorses, i.e. the “they won’t be bothering us any longer heh, heh, heh” kind.) A series of these high profile arrests, with the aid of countries from all over the world, particularly Muslim countries, and a transparent open legal proceeding would have been the way to deal with the issue. By framing it as a “war” it played into the megalomaniacal mindset of the terrorists. Had they been designated as global criminals in dry legal language, rather than with the religious rhetoric as the personification of “evil” they would have been somewhat marginalized as martyrs and it would have allowed the Muslim nations to respond with more vigor.
But then, a megalomaniacal mindset is not confined to terrorists, is it?
