...to that strain of anti-American thought within the Hatoyama administration. Back to that despicable universe of conspiracy theorists: Ironically, the Washington Times, not known for anti-Bush/Cheney positions, lent these alleged kooks its ears when with a straight face it reported the press conferences of a new group with a thousand members, the ‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ . They are supported by ‘Firefighters for 9/11 Truth’, who point at the crime committed by the government when it failed to hold a forensic investigation of the fires that destroyed the Trade Center complex. They do not peddle any conspiracy theory, all they hope for, like Fujita, is the re-opening of aspects of the case with new investigations. Fujita appears to be in a company that keeps on growing. In fact, judging by the online commentary attached to the Washington Post editorial (at 692 when posting), the editors may inadvertently have aided this growth as many commentators are supplying inquiring minds with links to sites for further study. This is as good an opportunity as any to pause for a moment and consider the interesting phenomenon of a flood of books, articles and references in recent years in which truly outrageous...

...that a 26-year-old Dutch commando had been killed in a gun battle. In the meantime the government has regularly signalled that it is ready to discuss the continuation of the Dutch contribution in Afghanistan, albeit in a modified format. That admission weakens their negotiation position vis-à-vis the United States, as well as vis-à-vis partners who are supposed to substitute for the Dutch. The government’s position was weakened once before with the earlier extension of the mandate, when the minister in charge said more than he should have. The Hague has been doubly warned because of the tragedy in Bosnia, at Srebrenica, where thousands of Moslems were slaughtered under the eyes of passive Dutch UN troops, something that resulted from Dutch indulgence in the face of agreements by allies that were broken. The American generals, directly responsible for the Afghanistan campaign, who visit The Hague these days are meeting Cabinet members apparently hobbled by what they feel is an insoluble dilemma. There are three arguments that the Dutch government uses to justify a longer stay in Afghanistan. They will sound very familiar to the American public. The aim of the mission is good – pacification and democratisation of Afghanistan. It would...

...vigorous. By withdrawing troops from Iraq more manpower will become available for Afghanistan. With money and fine words the local warlords and clan leaders must be seduced to choose the side of the invader. But the actual American presence ‘on the ground’ is at least as important in the thinking of the generals as are the good intentions of the new planners. If need be the allies can simply stay home is the audible complaint among those wearing stars. How serious matters have become is illustrated by remarks made by the commander of the US Central command – of which Afghanistan is a part. Gen David Petraeus, architect of the ‘surge’, the temporary reinforcement of American troops in Iraq in 2007 (which according to prevailing propaganda has delivered results) has declared: “We do believe we can achieve progress [in Afghanistan], but it’s going to get worse before it gets better. When you go into the enemy’s sanctuaries, they will fight you for it. There will be tough months ahead, without question.” He also had a recipe for overcoming the huge dilemma with which the Americans are confronted – how to fight a motivated and well trained opponent in the midst...

As the America of Barack Obama is tentatively reducing its distance to Russia, the question re-emerges as to what is, from a European point of view, the optimal diplomatic distance between the two former Cold War rivals. President Obama will visit Moscow in early July to meet his Russian counterpart Dmitri Medvedev. This meeting is clearly of vital importance to Europe. If the talks fail it will mean a serious upset of relations on the continent. If the meeting becomes a success the chances for a considerable improvement of American Russian relations will increase, an improvement that will also benefit Europe as a whole. Everything depends on whether or not Americans and Russians will succeed to establish a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) before December 5, when the existing treaty expires. The Bush government throughout its eight years in power refused to cooperate in establishing a follow-up. An expired treaty also means that the verification of the mutual reduction of nuclear arms comes to an end. Unless Obama and Medvedev agree on a new START and a new verification system the world will face nuclear anarchy. The Russian-American movements do involve a historical European dilemma. More distance means hostility...

...World War II, which prompted expert commentary about a possible end to capitalism as we have known it, but also a machinery of government that had purposely been wrecked by Republican officials still obsessed with the romantic notion that the less government you have, the better it is for everyone. This while the American military-industrial complex seemed to have gone berserk. It was of course understood from the very beginning that the new American president could not possibly fulfill the hopes of all who had worked hard to get him elected. But at a minimum he was elected to try to stop the casino type speculation of the large investment banks, and get them to allocate credit again, and to rein in American warmaking. “Please give him more time!” This is, still today, a common reaction when you bring up Obama’s failure in conversations with Europeans or Japanese, or – less so now – Americans. That sounds like a reasonable request. It fits in with the enthusiasm for Obama here and in Europe. What I am telling you instead, is not immediately obvious because it has been hidden in a dense fog of wishful thinking. There is strong resistance to...

...of habit. In all the post World War II days, during the Cold War, having an enemy seemed a natural thing. Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” book, and the extent to which that was taken seriously right after the Soviet Union disappeared, illustrated a habit of thought centered on clashing. From now on the great political clashes would no longer be between countries with different ideologies or imagined national interests, but between countries that belong to different civilizations. The above paragraph is lifted from an essay US vs THEM that I wrote in the summer of 2008, and which you can find here (and here in pdf – endnotes to follow). This is of course a very sad situation, and it may lead, eventually, to true disaster for the United States. That has been understood by a number of genuinely patriotic Americans, among whom the admirable Andrew Bacevich, Chalmers Johnson, Ira Chernus, James Carroll, and Chris Hedges. In the essay I try to show how some of the basic ideas that have been associated with the neoconservatives remain alive and well. How well-known intellectuals indulge in fantasies of Islamofascism, and the threat of an Islamic onslaugtht on European culture; how...