Posted October 30, 2001

I never read Scott McConnell until his column of October 23, "An Open Letter to Arab Readers."

I find this particular piece of writing quite incongruous with much of what I've seen on Antiwar.com the past year and a half. The site features many excellent writers who always make cogent arguments and who evidently have a genuine conversance with the historical background of their chosen topics. Justin Raimondo covers a wide, diverse range of topics, but it is clear to me that he knows how to research material required to support his statements.

In the future I hope your editors exclude work of McConnell's nature from your site. It lacks proper analysis and fails to give new information. What I got was a resounding confirmation that America truly has a big d*ck, and how it won't hesitate to use it against Arab civilian life if Arab governments are not vocal and active enough in this so-called "war on terrorism." Indeed, we Arabs may find that "the American response is to essentially put an end to urban life in the Arab world." ...Arabs will always thank America for helping to power people like Saddam Hussein. We are naturally indebted to the American government.

His article is exactly the kind of jingoistic material that people, on this site, and in the rest of the world, find so repulsive about American "patriotism." I am currently in the UK, and have realised that sometimes the average British person can be cruel in his or her assessment of Americans' political savvy because of individuals like Scott McConnell.

Whatever happened to the notion of justice, the notion of a fair trial? I, and I suspect a great majority of Arabs, are all for bringing the perpetrators of the 9/11 crimes on humanity to justice, and punishing them accordingly. The whole point of the discourse on Antiwar.com is to emphasize the need for justice, and to curb evil and destructive innate human behaviors which are not endemic to any race, color or creed.

~ Khalid F., Great Britain

Scott McConnell replies:

Khalid F. doesn't like my analysis of the current state of American opinion and where this current crisis could lead. Fine, but after a flurry of name calling and requests that my writing be "excluded" from Antiwar.com, (such an impressive tolerance for dissenting views!) he doesn't manage to tell me where I'm wrong. The unique thing about the present situation is that people who aren't generally jingoistic are being pushed, inexorably, into the belief that a military solution is the only satisfactory way out. But the potential risks – given a standoff between a well-armed superpower and a opponent whose actual power is unknown, but who has declared total war – are great, for people (children included) in many societies.

By the way, in case there are readers who missed my initial piece, the sentences that preceded my suggestion that Washington's response might be to "put an end to urban life in the Arab world" asked what might be the American answer if this this country faced nuclear terrorist attacks or the kind of terrorism that killed hundreds of thousands of US civilians. What does Khalid F. think the response would be? How would other countries – Russia, China, respond to such a thing? Not an easy question, and the fact that it now has to be asked is evidence of what a dangerous moment this is.

I'd also welcome his suggestions about how to try those responsible for 9-11 in a court of law, but precedence suggest that such trials follow successful military action rather than precede them.

The picture displayed on the Oct. 22 edition of Antiwar.com is a very grisly reality of war that many Americans don't understand. Politicians and generals constantly assure us that we our actions are careful, prudent, and necessary. Although some people will decry the horrendous nature of the image, it is necessary to express plainly what really happens when planes drop "smart" bombs from thousands of feet in the night sky.

In a war promoted to protect our freedoms and punish evil doers, ask yourself this: Is the destruction of children by tax-funded attacks honorable? Especially when worldwide accounts acknowledge that air and ground strikes are making little progress in actually rounding up terrorists. Collateral damage is only regrettable when all means are taken to avoid it. Indiscriminate bombings are not noble war options. As Charlie Reese recently said, "It wouldn’t hurt to actually apply Christianity at least once in the 2,000 years it’s been around. I know that’s a novel notion." Remember, the anger we felt after our citizens died is exactly the same across the world.

~ Kevin G.

Chef Raimondo

[Justin Raimondo's] ... essays always serve a very satisfying concoction of food for thought, a veritable feast of roasted game and succulent beasts. I have tasted and seen that you have been whipping up quite an eclectic menu, in the hot, fiery kitchen of the Republic. The chef is inspired! Why is Chef Raimondo so mean though? He beats the eggs, whips the cream and mashes the potatoes.

~ David D., Nova Scotia, Canada

Testosterone-Driven Visions

[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of October 22, "Noonan's Madness":]

Yes, Coulter's and Noonan's rantings are demonstrably irrational and hysterical, but I have read and heard just as much (if not more) such nonsense from men. (Sullivan and Wolfowitz are excellent examples.)

I have also read some of the most sane, uplifting and imminently rational discourses from other women, such as Arundhati Roy's "War is Peace", and "The Algebra of Infinite Justice" – two of the finest articles I have ever read, anywhere – as well as Barbara Kingsolver's "No Glory in Unjust War" and Stephanie Salter's "We Didn't Have To Do This".

If anything, I think women are generally much more sober and thoughtful in regard to their attitude toward war, though we are invariably scorned for our perceived tendency toward "pacifism" or "appeasement". This is because while many men are easily carried away in their own war hysteria – buoyed up on lofty, testosterone-driven visions of machismo, glory and heroism – not to mention the chance to kill people and blow stuff up without being thought criminal for doing so – women, on the other hand, are generally far more empathic to the incredible injustice and suffering brought about by wars – all wars.

~ Maluvia