How will Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State perform in the "War on Terror" when George W Bush is gone? As Monday's announcement of her appointment approaches, best that her statements be gauged.
Steve Weismann, contributor to the Berkley Free Speech Movement and Ramparts Magazine, assesses the current Mumbai mayhem--and what lies ahead for Barack Obama.
The article is published in the November 30th edition of Truthout.
Taking a longer view of terrorist events, Weisman writes:
To gain perspective, Obama might ask his advisers to brief him on the very different wave of terrorism that spread from Russia, through Europe, and into the United States between 1881 and 1914. The terrorists were mostly anarchists, and they killed, among others, Czar Alexander II, King Umberto I of Italy, the president of France, the prime minister of Spain, and the president of the United States, William McKinley.
Through it all --after World War I, precipitated in part by Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination--the anarchists of that era realized they would not prevail through armed conflict. They turned to reliance on new tactics of labor organizing.
In the current state of world affairs, the more heavy-handed the military leaves bootprints in other countries, the more deadly and global are the flareups . What happened in India during the waning days of November causes Weisman to counsel against reliance on military responses:
Barack Obama is in a unique position to build cooperation and encourage Muslims everywhere to find their own way forward. Happily, he has made a good start by announcing that he will close Guantánamo and end the horrors of torture. He has also raised the hope, however faint, that he will work toward a just settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.
Antagonists of today both have more deadly weapons and greater means of communication. In the White House, when the red phone rings, what will the President tell his Secretaries of State and Defense?