Autonomedia writes: " "The Outcome Could Not Be More Uncertain
Immanuel Wallerstein Oct. 1, 2001
In his speech to the U.S. Congress and to the world, President Bush
said, in asserting what the U.S. intended to do, that there
were many difficulties ahead, "yet its outcome is certain." This could
not be more untrue. If his statement was meant as
hortatory rhetoric, it may be considered normal discourse for a leader
of a nation besieged. But if it reflects the analytic view of
Bush and his principal deputies, then it is a dangerous misperception.
Of course, the first obscurity is to which outcome Bush is referring. He
may mean the destruction of Al-Qaeda, which is a
possible albeit extremely difficult objective. He may mean the
elimination or defanging of all groups anywhere that the U.S.
will designate as "terrorist," in which case the possibility of success
seems extremely dubious. He may mean a restoration of the
belief of the American people and the world in general in the military
prowess of the United States government, which is, as of
this point, an objective whose success is quite uncertain. He may mean
sustaining the interests of the United States as a country
and of its enterprises, an objective whose likelihood of success is at
best shaky.
It is important in thinking about "outcomes" to give oneself different
time lines. I propose three: six months, five years, 50
years. The picture for Bush looks rosiest within a six-months
perspective. Consider what he has already gained in the short
period since Sept. 11. Before that day, the Bush administration was
subjected to opposition, of varying degrees, from just about
everywhere, and notably from the Democrats in Congress; the allies in
Europe; Russia and China; the governments and
populations of most of the countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America;
and a worldwide "anti-globalization" movement. That's
a formidable list, and almost all of this opposition has either
disappeared or been greatly muted since the attack on Sept. 11. The
Democrats in Congress and the allies in Europe have rallied round the
U.S. under siege. Russia, China, and most of the
governments of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have given some kind of
at least qualified support to a U.S. response to the
attack. The "anti-globalization" movement has been relatively quiet and
is wondering whether it should transform itself into a
"peace" movement.
read the rest of Immanuel's commentary here
