|
that would maybe be interesting, mojo, if the history of american foreign policy since world war 2 did not reveal, as self-evident, that the americans do not and have not cared about despots, about murderous regimes, so long as they were politically convenient. while this history is not pretty to investigate, it is easy enough to do--and maybe knowing about it would prevent you from being chumped so easily by this latest, most desperate justification for war floated from the bush people.
but no matter: to the question:
to the extent that an american president might be in a position to alter the nature of american-dominated capitalism around the world, maybe he or she would be in a position to reduce the threat of "terrorism" by reducing some of its causes. because to argue that "terrorists" act out of some essential quality that is coterminous with religion, say, is to argue for and about nothing. people are driven to desperate actions by the situations in which they find themselves---these situations have causes--the political options that might otherwise have channelled dissent/desperation would have to be largely inoperative as well--this too has causes.
"terrorism" is a political act.
so it stands to reason that the american president could do things that would reduce it. whether he or she would do these things is a different matter.
as for "protecting" the states from the consequences of its policies, direct and indirect, without addressing those policies--no....all this self-blinding way of thinking does is make the slide into a kind of fascism lite easier to rationalize. you are not safer for it.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|