Roblov,
I was going to reply to say that your analogy--of WU to AQ--was clumsy.
But then I realized that the best response is to test the analogy and see where it holds water and where it leaks.
Where it holds water is that, indeed, both WU was, and AQ is, engaged in activities that spite the intentions and wishes of their host governments: WU was certainly opposed to the Washington establishment, and vice-versa. And AQ actually sees it's host Saudi establishment as toadies to imperialism, and the post-9/11 Saudi establishment continues to be in the good graces of the Washington establishment only by dint of Washington being fully aware of AQ as a splinter extremist manifestation. The Saudi establishment remains firm in its commitments to serve western power.
But there is also some serious leakage in your analogy. The "sin" of the Saudi establishment, to AQ, is that they sell their cultural and religious heritage down the river for the paltry plate of beans offered by the "infidel" West.
The "sin" of the Washington establishment, to the WU, is that they sold the cultural heritage of decent, small-'r' republicanism down the river for the politically retrograde "promise" of global economic empire, and the supporting supposition that warmongering to achieve that end is inherently cheap; costing merely the terror-filled hoary deaths of a handful (~50,000) of the nation's young people, similar deaths (~1Mil) of people half-a-world away, and a dipping-into of the Nation Treasury to the tune of about US$400billion in 1970 dollars. And let's not forget the associated depredations upon the national conscience.
And those are *very, very* different things, and not easily placed side-by-side in an analogy.
But, again considering the aptness of your analogy, I can see another commonality: Both AQ and the WU worked toward the common end of getting change in their host systems: AQ wanted change in the Saudi establishment, and the WU wanted change in the American establishment. This certainly marks both as pariah organizations. The wide, easy road for any organization that wants systemic support and sustainability is to serve the establishment power structure; and that goes for every country on the planet. Any organization that sets itself to oppose the established power system, no matter how reasonable and well-formed its moral grounds, has a tough row to hoe.
And, again, while I think your OP is a little clumsy (precipitous in its conclusions), one thing stands out: Deeply thinking about the plusses and minuses of your analogy is a very, very useful strategy for thinking about America, "heavy power", and its imperial aspirations.
--
And I'd like that. But that 5h1t ain't the truth. --Jules Winnfield
reply
share