Feminist Diplomacy
Diplomacy may seem a lost art these days, when the lone superpower prefers belligerent bluffing games creating cover rationales for a lead in to war. Making a huge deal of refusing to negotiate with certain enemies officially tagged evil terrorist creates a convenient rationale for aggression justified as preemptive war. There is no excuse for aggressive attack or preemptive war, though US politics seems to take the principle of intervention for granted, especially since the war on terrorism commenced. Democrats are also all for fighting the real war on terror, as they call it, refusing to take nuclear attack on Iran off the table. This is not limited to Republican madness. That idea is mad, inviting Armageddon or a science fiction horror story, at least for the Middle East, though taking a wider view, there is no escaping consequences of a nuclear attack. Any attack on Iran would be yet another foolhardy violation of international law, making harder to deny the argument USA is at war with Islam, as its extremist spokesmen have been saying at least since the attack on Afghanistan for harboring Osama bin Laden, after refusing to consider the Taliban offer to turn him over for some of that solid evidence of his primary responsibility that was claimed to exist at the time. If US officials really had more than suspicions so quickly, that was one way to avoid war, among others men in power ignored, never saw, or dismissed. Unlike Afghanistan or Iraq, Iran is not an inconsequential appearing foe, having several ways to retaliate beyond the obvious, attacking US troops across its border or Israel. Some have argued this is already a world war, but most Israeli and US officials seem determined to provoke one. From my perspective, feminist diplomacy for my country would develop practical, nonviolent ways to deal with enemies no matter why, or with what kind of passion, they hate US policy, which in no way represents the interests of women anywhere, though some may support it. Since that last spectacular attack on USA, it is more egregiously igniting more and fiercer enemies.
These ways could include creating a forum to hear grievances, an international tribunal to settle all issues peacefully, negotiating compensation for legitimate grievances. Terror is a desperate tactic of people whose grievances are ignored, rather exacerbated by official reaction to protests. Recognizing this is not appeasement or justifying exceptionally deplorable acts of terror, rather recognizing enemies have legitimate issues is critical to negotiating a workable agreement to stop the killing, on the basis of there being a way to air all legitimate grievances for fair hearing and reasonable compensation. This is in no way about justifying terrorism, but pointing out how belligerent policy aggravates the matter, trying to force compliance with demands instead of negotiate a live and let live in peace agreement. Politicians may lean toward selective diplomacy, even Republicans, but while posturing about plans to bring a change in course to get troops home from Iraq, Democratic leadership is desperately running away from the weak on terror bogeyman, supporting that bill to privatize Iraqi oil, talking tough on Iran, as well as promoting free trade agreements, going to show once again, they play their part in the problem. New trade agreements will include better protections for local workers and environment, so they say, sounds like what they always say, so next time never arrives. That implies something not so hot about the last one with a few countries in Latin America willing to go along, raising a question, how much better than those lousy deals making big business money at the expense of the local population and environment, as well as workers losing offshored jobs? This tribunal I suggest, I predict most politicians would denounce as treasonous or appeasement, more likely ignore, as they ignore most issues I choose to raise hell about. US politicians hope to avoid jurisdiction of international law or courts, but World Trade Organization is another matter, a tool to grease the race to the bottom. Plans for ramming the World Trade towers, Pentagon, and ? were no doubt initiated long before Bush Jr. claimed victory, possibly before Clinton, but certainly did not go on hiatus for him.
Warmongers see any attempt at diplomacy with bitter enemies as appeasement, as though there were no legitimate grievances with US foreign policy and transnational corporate activities. Those cost USA the moral high ground needed to discredit the jihad, ranks swelling thanks to the war on terror, the sinister trap luring USA to disaster, dishonor, violating international law to pursue a new Crusade, shattered credibility, alliances, and rights back home, and ultimately end of the corporate empire. That could happen suddenly and soon, through cascading bankruptcy or abandonment of the dollar as primary currency for international trade, causing a bond selloff to collapse this current stock market bubble. Call it military defeat or standoff in Afghanistan and Iraq, both make a mockery of superpower stardom. Expanding the war may reveal just how much worse it can get. This is no benevolent empire justified in its noble humanitarian interventions. It is not immune to military defeat or war coming home.
I see feminist diplomacy bringing an end to all that, an end to any desire to dominate, from the world to another being, human or otherwise. That is the road to more disaster, the sudden end of ability of this planet to sustain human life, perhaps all life. Men have to listen to reason, talk truce, or stand aside as women negotiate peace plans for wars around the world, end the war on terror, put forth ideas to stop the vicious cycle of retaliation. Men have gotten it wrong, more or less distorted or reversed, on just about everything, what they think they know notwithstanding. Most of that is based not on reality, but male theory, structured hierarchically on every level, which in practice glorifies violence, making it seem normal, casual, the expected way to solve an escalated conflict. Violence is only justifiable in self-defense or to aid self-defense, to stop or capture a violent criminal. Aggressive violence is never the only way or best way to resolve a conflict. That would fly in the face of reason, sense, instinct, reducing people to thoughtless insensate brutes, insulting the intelligence of most animals. Yet such is the psychology of the culture of empire, as if there is a right of the most powerful to claim dominance, rule, authority to make decisions directly affecting another. There is no such right; men invented and enshrined the might makes right concept, now devolving into corporate empire pushing to claim the world as a free trade zone so as to ruin local culture, enterprises, social services, and ecology, the better to grab up resources and cheap labor.
Democrats are complicit in most of this, still funding the wars and expanding free trade. They are by and large as comfortable with the war metaphor, the tough guy or gal act, working to further corporate empire. They are by no means about a feminist revolution, even if Hillary Clinton becomes their nominee. She is part of the problem, putting her touch on business as usual. As most Democrats, she wants to fight the real war on terror, whatever that means. Negotiating to end the war on terror is not part of her lexicon. National or cultural pride has limits. Aggressive war is illegal and foolish, but US politicians do not want to risk the taunt of appeasing terrorists. Negotiation is the only way to end this war. Winning is impossible even to define. USA has to own up to consequences of its trampling all over the world. Instead it heads for world war with few if any allies. This is a logical end result of male philosophy, the men on top will go for it all, control of everything they can think of. Scientists meddle with everything from DNA and brain chemistry to outer space in the quest for money and weapons. Women are reduced to pawns in this world, most forced to serve male ideology, interests, or lusts to survive. Women could represent the interests and ideas of women, but virtually all political parties big and small give women short shrift. Ms. Clinton has the name recognition, so is portrayed as the only woman who has a chance to win. This insults the intelligence of all women, but within the confines of mainstream party politics, it may be true.
To US politicians, the idea of discussing the truce Osama bin Laden offered is unthinkable. He is a war criminal, but he has lots of company in that regard among his enemies. If he could make a truce stick, persuade his followers to call off the jihad in the name of Islamic honor, that could be a starting point to negotiate a peace plan. It is easy for forget he was once an ally, against Soviet Union. Some credit that jihad with the breakup of that evil empire. It is too easy to say he has no honor, or is too sexist or fanatical or full of hate, so cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith. It is too easy to say negotiating with an enemy rewards terrorism. This war on terror cannot be won or justified. There is no moral high ground on either side. Bin Laden represents the views of too many and more all the time. An enemy figurehead such as bin Laden cannot be dismissed as not negotiable fanatical terrorist. However ghastly the tactics of an enemy, this does not create the luxury of ignoring their grievances. USA has hopelessly lost the battle for hearts and minds, for many good reasons, like Abu Ghraib and all the other instances of rape and mayhem. Women soldiers do not escape, getting raped and harassed regularly, the perpetrators rarely disciplined. USA casts itself as a model for the world. No wonder most of the world objects to that arrogant extreme of nationalism.
Feminists have created different models, creating a space for ways to exist peacefully with bitter foes, put a stop to the cycle of violence. This may sound pipedreamy, but that truce was offered for a reason. The Islamic code of honor required it. It should have been recognized and discussed, but it was dismissed out of hand like a bad joke, hardly noticed by the media. It is said Islam is about love of death, that its believers think America is too soft, a pushover. This is all warmonger hype, since love of death is a common disease of male-centered religions and politics. Hamas is said to be avowed to the destruction of Israel. This is also hype; Hamas stated it accepts the fact that Israel exists, but not Israeli claims and violent actions in occupied territories. Israel could negotiate with Hamas, but Israeli leaders are determined to isolate Hamas, despite its popularity as a resistance force defending the people, winning a hotly contested election. Significance of recognizing the right to exist of a state illegally occupying your land is overlooked by mainstream media. The tactics on both sides are deplorable, as usual, but most wars are battles over hyped variations of male ideology, cutthroat competitive nationalism or religious pride at work, while women have no say worth mentioning, but take more than a fair share of the suffering.
Cutthroat competition is how the theory of free enterprise has degenerated. Competition could be revisioned as trying harder, to excel in whatever pursuit, without seeking to dominate. The point would be not to win, but to improve life, for oneself or also others. Schools could be all about developing talents, creativity, independent thought, skills, not passing tests to be dumbed down, appropriately drugged, raised on TV, cogs in the corporate machine. This is another subject, but feminist revisioning runs across the board. Men make so much of winning, the ideal, competing to win the central purpose of everything. No wonder Earth is in such a mess. It is not for nothing I say men have almost everything backwards, wrong, corrupted, twisted to serve the few near the top of the local hierarchal house of cards. Men like to score, as if seducing women is a victory, a conquest. Winning is a bad reason to compete, nor is conquest a goal worthy of human potential, in war or sexuality. I think men focused on winning long ago because some man got the idea to overpower a woman saying no. Self-defense is not remotely about winning or dominance, nor is responsible hunting for food. Aggressive violence is about winning, forcing the target to accept whatever the will of the winner imposes. Rape could have been the original model for coercion, winning by violent acts the ability to have his way over her. Men could have found other reasons to fight, but winning a fight need not make the loser a slave. Life has meaning, not a contest with the object to beat, conquer, or control other people. Rules of doing business need not allow abuse like competing to be the biggest, devouring competition, or polluting a neighborhood. Hostile takeovers have no place if fair competition is valued in free enterprise. That is only workable as a free marketplace of ideas, so companies compete to make the best quality products and services, so customers can choose among a variety for the one that best suits them. Throwing hostile takeover and huge aggregations of capital into the mix ruins free enterprise. Competition has degenerated so far from its potential value, even Adam Smith would find it horrifying.
Cutthroat competition does not have to be the way free enterprise works. When free enterprise was working reasonably well was when corporations had to follow limited charters defining their narrow purposes for existing. If corporations stayed within those bounds, they could not buy out or put competition out of business, buy unrelated businesses to form a conglomerate, or get cozy subsidies to ruin farmers in other countries by dumping subsidized excess grains on their markets so, for instance, the best Mexican farmland can be grabbed by a few rich guys while desperation drives its impoverished people north for a chance for a better life. Some big US employers make money off this free trade arrangement for cheap labor. Some employers of migrants are more like slavemasters, figuring the workers will not dare trying to organize or raise issues with working conditions. All this is going on partly because corporations have been allowed to ruin business and politics with the edge cutthroat competition gives those with big money and connections, corrupting politics into a mockery of a democratic republic. Free enterprise can only work well with brisk competition and sensible rules of doing business keeping everyone honest.
Preemptive war is an extreme expression of lack of honesty, transparency, tolerance, thought, sense, civility, and common decency. It is the worst way to attempt to solve a problem, solving nothing, creating more bitter enemies while lining the pockets of companies in military or related businesses. Despite the debacles in the first two battles in the war on terror, Iran will probably be next in line, with feeble if any protest from Democrats, chastened by hawkish supporters of Israel hyping Iran as a nuclear threat. Any nation producing nuclear energy is a nuclear threat, because reactors produce plenty of material for dirty bombs, along with suitable ingredients for arguably the worst kind of weapons ever invented. Uranium and its derivatives have no place in a civilized society. Unlike their peculiar places in modern warfare from ultra hard penetrator to doomsday deterrent, none of their industrial or medical uses are irreplaceable. It does not help US attempts to win hearts and minds to put uranium dust on the winds just because its chemical properties make it such a valuable weapon. Uranium is toxic as well as radioactive, so ingesting it is no picnic. It is quite capable of causing epidemics of unusual cancers and birth defects, as well as symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome. Is this the modern variety of scorched earth tactic at work? The prerogative to pollute shows its worst extremes in military applications.
Feminist diplomacy would not insist on imposing feminist models of behavior on other cultures, but would encourage women of all nations to express their grievances and ideas for better ways. Men may not want to listen, but that just means men have lessons to learn. Offering assistance to capture energy from sun and wind might help convince men to listen to women. There are many things USA could offer other nations in exchange for things like respect and rights for women. There are also ways of encouraging women to revolt, but that gets risky and complicated where women have no basic rights such as a right to vote. Women could be encouraged to organize resistance regardless, but open revolt risks deadly retaliation, unless the resistance catches on to overwhelming numbers.
USA has made enemies that will be skeptical of any talking, but could show it means to negotiate in good faith by negotiating treaties to outlaw and decommission the worst weapons, meaning nuclear, biological, chemical, including the research. People already know far too much about killing; we should be investing all that time, energy, and money in improving quality of life for everyone. People have the intelligence to work out ways to live in peace, but too many men would rather fight. That oversimplifies matters slightly; men may know no other way, under the circumstances. It can be tricky to theorize on faraway wars while living in a nation that prospers on the surface while here and across the borders, some get richer, but more poor get poorer. Some call that imperialism, but it goes down deeper. I see nothing deserving authority in the airs men in power put on. Their power is contrived, built into the game they play, the winner take all power over principle refined to support intricate hierarchical structures. If the rules of that game change to reflect inherent reality, let alone its model, anything based on unsound theories must collapse, as any house of cards must once losing its shaky foundation. There are many ways of trading goods and services. Cutthroat competition dominated by multinational monstrosities with proportional political influence is about the worst imaginable in a democracy. Next up is fascism, and it is a quibble how close is USA, because it is too close and looks to get closer, regardless of who wins next election, unless someone comes out of nowhere with a radically different vision.
Feminist diplomacy has many such possibilities that sound impossible in a mainstream frame of reference, because they are. Those points of view are based on the principle of hierarchy, based at bottom on the idea men need to be in control, so women must accept that. No, women feel forced by fear or belief in duty when they accept anything of the sort. Nobody needs to be in control in a partnership. In business or politics, decisions need not be made by someone at the top. Decisions could be worked out to be acceptable to at least a majority of everyone affected by the decision. If there is no need or desire to dominate, no concept of subordinate or rank, creativity can have free rein, a free marketplace of ideas can develop rewarding products and services of better value. That is what competition could mean, in my ideal sense, which is so different from what it means in capitalism that it is no wonder some consider concepts of competition and free markets beyond redemption, doomed to a mockery of what free enterprise could be, degenerated into a race to the bottom for wages and quality of life, health, and ecology. Reclaiming language so far gone can be a tempting but fruitless enterprise. The point is, this world has potential to support all its life forms with reasonable quality of life, but not one with the winner take all might makes right mentality. That way lies utter ruin for planet Earth.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Aletha, I have not read all of this entry so far. I agree with negotiating with people who have grievances against the US, but with those who have *not* already mass murdered our citizens. I am concerned with your stance on negotiating with Bin Laden. I was born and raised in New York City and could easily have been in the vicinity of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. As a New Jersey EMT, which I was at that time, I was put on standby alert to respond to that disaster. Bin Laden and his hijackers killed nearly 3000 people that day, at the WTC, the Pentagon and the plane that crashed in PA. How can we “negotiate” with a man who needs to be caught and brought to justice? I can see the rightness and necessity of negotiating with those in the Middle East who oppose the same US policies in that region that Bin Laden and his crew oppose, but with Bin Laden himself? Would Bin Laden agree to turn himself in for justice? This really concerns me. There should be negotiation and tribunals which should come to agreements in which all the peoples of the world are winners, but the perpetrators of terrorist acts should be punished, not rewarded.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
“Feminist diplomacy has many such possibilities that sound impossible in a mainstream frame of reference, because they are.”
Excellent point!
August 5th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Branjor, bin Laden is a figurehead. It was not just him who planned that attack or gave the orders. That was an act of war, against symbols of empire. Calling it terrorism is to introduce vagueness and demonizing. Diplomacy means to negotiate with enemies, not friends. I do not think bin Laden without a sense of honor. He offered a truce, as his code required. I think he might have been serious. I would negotiate with the devil himself if I thought there was a decent chance for a truce. If he is brought to justice, what about all the people in the administration and Congress responsible for all the aggressive acts, war crimes, this nation has carried out? Are they benign or terrorist? Perhaps all these war criminals should be tried in the international courts. I think it more likely to negotiate a truce. The point is not to reward bin Laden, but to compensate the people wronged by US policy. Bin Laden is rich, though he may live in caves on the run. If US leaders are not to be prosecuted for war crimes, prosecuting bin Laden will just make him a martyr, feeding the jihad. If bin Laden meant what he said and can deliver on a truce, that is a basis for negotiation I think should not be dismissed.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Heart, I think that you are the best possible canidate for president we will see anythime soon. I would vote for you, and I will tell all of my friends about you too.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Hey, thanks, Alica! Spread the word!
Heart
August 30th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Of all the comments to get spammed by Akismet! Sorry Heart!
September 13th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Others are contemplating negotiating with al Qaeda, according to this story today from Reuters
The rest of the article is all about obstacles and objections to negotiating with al Qaeda. Nevertheless, there are some realistic minds willing to acknowledge this war on terrorism is unwinnable, and that negotiations are the only way to end it.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:44 am
They’re going to consider talking to Al-Qaeda? That will be a neat trick if it’s nothing more than an American invention.
So how do we diplomatically negotiate with our own fascist leaders and the biggest terrorist organization on the planet aka the U.S. government? How do we diplomatically negotiate with this organization that will admit nothing, much less tell the truth about anything, and frame others or even invent non-existent organizations, for what they are behind and responsible for, not only on our own soil (9/11), but world-wide? Vote? **chuckle** Seems to me, Bush wasn’t elected either time, yet he’s still been president for the last 7 years. Obviously. our elections are a farce and not much more than a puppet show. The U.S. government has been fixing elections world-wide for decades, but what? They wouldn’t fix our own?
Let’s stop being naive, ok? It makes us look kind of dopey to the rest of the world.
See that? I was being diplomatic. I didn’t use the word “stupid.”
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 am
Hello, Lucky. Nice to see someone new here. For those not familiar with Lucky, she has a longer Internet history than me, and much more extensive as well. She chose not to link to her blog, but she does have one where she is presumably less diplomatic.
I agree with most of what you said, Lucky, but though I might hold US policy ultimately responsible for 9/11, I would disagree that the government was behind it. They used it for their own purposes, with considerable cooperation from Democrats. I think the government has limited abilities to rig elections, and there may be ways to foil any such plans. I do not think it is necessary or wise to negotiate anything with Big Brother, except a peaceful transfer of power.
Is the literal meaning of al Qaeda not simply, The Base? There are those who speak for it, to whom I assume this article refers. I have also heard it used to describe a loose association of Muslim extremists worldwide, more or less loyal to spokesmen like bin Laden. I thought the proper term would be, jihadis. There is a jihad against Western powers, so 9/11 was not a total shock to me. I would not believe anything said about 9/11, unless it made sense to me. There is a whole lot said that does not pass my scrutiny from Big Brother and those alleging false flag operation. An independent investigation to find out the connections I could get behind, but I do not see that happening, unless the election is a big surprise. I figure you are still skeptical of such ideas, but that is not really the subject of this entry.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Hi Aletha! As you can see, I’ve found your blog! **smile** The reason why I didn’t link to my blog is because I really don’t have one. It’s at best, a make-shift one. IOWs, I posted a few entries to make sure everything worked right and then pretty much forgot about it. As a geek, I’m more interested in the code and playing with all the pretty colors than I am in writing. Because I’m really not a writer and have never really thought of myself as one. I don’t consider posting the same thing as writing.
Is the literal meaning of al Qaeda not simply, The Base?
Well sort of. Al Qaeda was simply the name of a training camp that was established after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The camp was used by mujahideen to struggle against Russia’s terrorism. It really isn’t an organization. The U.S. primarily invented the organization so it could bring bin Laden up on charges under the RICO act. In order to do that, it had to be shown that bin Laden was the leader of a criminal organization. Which he really wasn’t. At best, individuals loosely went to bin Laden to simply ask him for money. Needless to say, we really don’t hear much mention of al Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks. It’s now used to describe any cell considered terrorist. Of course Bush considers just about anyone who doesn’t go along with his program and his war, a terrorist. He even ordered that feminist organizations like NOW be kept an eye on. It’s kind of silly to think of feminists and NOW as al Qaeda, no? But what isn’t so funny is that this is the way these warped boys think. “You’re either for us, or you’re against us and a terrorist.”
I thought the proper term would be, jihadis.
Jihadi is simply anyone who engages in persistant and zealous pursuits. IOWs, feminists could be considered jihadi. And I have seen feminists use the term. The correct term is “mujahid” tho (mujahideen is plural) so “jihadi” is more of an abbreviated slang.
Perhaps now you can see why I get the heebie jeebies when I hear words like “al Qaeda” and “jihadi.” It’s not too far-fetched to think the negative connotations of these labels might be attached to feminists, which will then associate feminism with terrorism. Scary thought, no? Hmmm…. I wonder how long it’ll take these boys to actually get around to doing it?
On a more disturbing note, I’ve heard rumor that Benazir Bhutto, prior to her assassination of course, appeared on the BBC to do an interview with David Frost and mentioned something in passing about the murder of bin Laden. The comment was apparently edited out but not before more than a few people heard it. For obvious reasons, the search is now vigorously on to find the unedited version. Because if bin Laden is already dead, the implications are severe. Especially for some very high ranking officials. One can only speculate if this would then have had anything to do with Bhutto’s assassination? More than a few would have wanted her silenced if she knew where all the dead bodies were and started running her mouth about it.
This whole thing gets bigger and creepier as time goes on. There’s a fairly new movie out called “A Mighty Heart” starring Angelina Jolie. It’s about the kidnapping and beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi back in 2002 and his wife Mariane’s search for him through a very complicated maze. The tape of the actual beheading can be found on the internet but it’s pretty grusome. Omar Sheikh, a British-born militant, was charged for the crime and is waiting to be hanged in Pakistan. But he most certainly didn’t murder Daniel Pearl and isn’t responsible for it as even the U.S. government and Mariane Pearl acknowledge. But it can’t be afforded to bring other suspects in and questioned and charged. Because of the evidence that will have to be uncovered and disclosed. What’s the big deal? Well, the name Omar Sheikh might ring a bell. Because of his involvement with the 9/11 attacks. Words like ISI, CIA, 9/11 and names of high ranking officials both domestic and abroad start flying around and we can’t possibly have that.
Ah, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive. It’s sort of like pieces of a puzzle that are slowly, but surely being fitted together. It’s all related. Its all connected. But people are still being killed as those involved still try frantically to prevent the cat from getting out of the bag. Can’t say as I blame them. Because the heads of some high ranking officials are going to roll.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 am
I have heard persistent rumors about ISI wiring money to Mohammed Atta just before 9/11. Regarding Benazir Bhutto telling David Frost on BBC that bin Laden was murdered, that is no rumor. There is much speculation over what she meant, if she misspoke, etc., but here is a YouTube link of the entire interview. The show was aired Nov. 2. She mentions the murder a little over six minutes into the show.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Some anonymous commenter did a bit of research on other times Bhutto mentioned bin Laden recently which makes it doubtful she really believed bin Laden is dead.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Hmmm…. should I take the word of a woman? A woman I’m seeing and hearing with my own eyes and ears? Or should the hearsay of men be given more weight?
Well, besides the point that the latter wouldn’t even be taken seriously in a court of law, my momma taught me to believe none of what I hear and half of what I see. If I go with that, it’s a no brainer. I give more weight to what Bhutto was caught saying on tape on the David Frost show for all the world to see and hear. That bin Laden was murdered. Besides, I’m a feminist. As a feminist, I choose to believe women over men. Isn’t it time someone did?
January 10th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Lucky, I hear you, but those were direct quotes, not hearsay. Yeah, the quotes could have been bogus, but it seems more likely Bhutto misspoke, or was playing her audience. Which audience is the question. Certainly bin Laden was on her mind. It is possible she was toeing the line, as a US ally, then decided to let the truth out on the David Frost show. It is also possible she was testing Mr. Frost to see if the old man was paying attention to her. If he was, he gave no sign.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Omar bin Laden, a son of Osama and his first wife Najwa, wants to be a peace ambassador, with his wife, a British grandmother twice his age. He is convinced a truce is possible. This AP story is from Yahoo News
People may think it is ridiculous to contemplate a truce with fanatical enemies, but how does any war end? When victory is a pipedream, an offer of truce should not be dismissed. This son of Osama bin Laden could be a valuable go-between. His desire to broker a truce may well be genuine, and if met halfway, diplomacy between cooler heads could bring an end to the jihad. However, do not expect any mainstream US politician to jump at that chance! They all think the war on terror must be won, though they may disagree as to which fronts are legitimate.