Alwalli

Can't spell the guy's name. Sorry.

I heard something amazing during Alwalli's interview on C-span. Madiline Albright asked him how he could have elections if three provinces didn't participate? Afterall, we couldn't have an election here and call it legitimate if, say, California, Texas and (some other state, I forgot which she used) weren't able to participate.

I think this is a very interesting question that gets at the entire problem in how we have allowed the situation to be defined in a way that benefits the enemy.

It depends on the reason that these three states couldn't participate. If we didn't let them participate then it would be illegitimate. If on the other hand they couldn't participate becasue they, or at least some critical mass of their population, were supporting a campaign of terrorism that was making it impossible to carry out elections then I think without question we would go ahead with elections. Afterall, we did exactly that during the Civil War. We can hardly let a handful of terrorists with the support of 1o to 30 percent of the population--whatever the number a minority--deny the rest of the polity the right to determine their future by elections. What could be more undemocratic than giving a veto to any minority willing to engage in random acts of violence.

It is amazing how responsibility has been shifted by words. I think the key here is the words "provide security." This makes it seem as if security is a good to be spread around equitably. This makes sense when you are talking about posting a nightwatchman in a parking lot or providing beat cops to neighborhoods. It makes very little sense when the security problem is not random acts of criminality but an orchestrated campaign to prevent a democratic vote. The Union didn't fail to provide security to the South. We had a war. What we are failing to provide is victory.