tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post3556783968500819049..comments2024-01-21T02:42:13.447-05:00Comments on Middle East Reality: Obama on al Qaeda and PalestineArnold Evanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11445744338502151561noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-41443192326179630022009-04-08T22:37:00.000-04:002009-04-08T22:37:00.000-04:00The PR value of attacking the US is superior to th...The PR value of attacking the US is superior to that of attacking Sweden only for groups that oppose the policies of the US at least as much as they do the policies of Sweden.<BR/><BR/>If Sweden had been doing the things Bin Laden - himself in his own words - accused the US of doing, and the US was not, then of course attacking the US would have had no PR value, while attacking Sweden would have had superior PR value.<BR/><BR/>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966817.stm<BR/><BR/>Maybe Bin Laden is lying about his own motivations, but I have no reason to figure anything out. I'll go by what he says in his periodic tapes.<BR/><BR/>Obama's argument that al Qaeda's opposition to the US is independent of US policy is ridiculous, and far more simple than my criticism of that argument.<BR/><BR/>My point is that the US identification with the Zionist project is astonishingly expensive. Far more expensive than I've ever seen calculated by US decision-makers.<BR/><BR/>As an illustration, I'll assert that if in 2002, the US publicly advocated a South Africa-style one state solution to the Palestine conflict - with guarantees for the liberties, lives and properties of Jewish individuals - that would have immediately radically reoriented the region in ways favorable to the US.<BR/><BR/>The US goals that the US was trying to accomplish through the Iraq sanctions and later the invasion - maintaining a balance of power in the region in which none of the powers threatened Israel and maintaining US access to regional resources - would have either been unnecessary or easier to accomplish.<BR/><BR/>An invasion and occupation of Iraq would likely have been unnecessary, but even if the US did overturn Hussein's government by force, replacing it with a relatively pro-US democratic government would have been far easier and less expensive to achieve if the US wasn't accurately seen as the enabler of what most people in the region perceive as the single biggest foreign policy injustice in the region.<BR/><BR/>The costs (estimated at nearly $1 trillion) of the Iraq invasion and occupation, in addition to the costs of fighting al Qaeda, are largely, maybe not entirely but largely, the opportunity cost of the US failure to publicly support a one state solution to the Israel conflict earlier.Arnold Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11445744338502151561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-80429758505623697492009-04-08T16:11:00.000-04:002009-04-08T16:11:00.000-04:00Of course, it is no where near that simple. Have ...Of course, it is no where near that simple. Have you ever considered that the PR value of attacking the US is superior to that of attacking Sweden? When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail and to sit back and to assume you can figure out exactly what motivates Al Queada's actions is a joke. Have you forgotten the Algiers, Danish Embassy and the bombings in Spain (not sure that was Al Queada)?Steven in Miamihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458129967122817331noreply@blogger.com