Nonviolence and the strategy against terrorism

by David Cortright

In the months after 9/11, Jim Wallis challenged peace advocates to
address the threat of terrorism. "If nonviolence is to have any
credibility," he wrote, "it must answer the questions violence
purports to answer, but in a better way." Gandhian principles of
nonviolence provide a solid foundation for crafting an effective
strategy against terrorism. Nonviolence is fundamentally a means of
achieving justice and combating oppression. Gandhi demonstrated its
effectiveness in resisting racial injustice in South Africa and
winning independence for India. People-power movements have since
spread throughout the world, helping to bring down communism in
Eastern Europe and advancing democracy in Serbia, Ukraine, and beyond.
The same principles - fighting injustice while avoiding harm - can be
applied in the struggle against violent extremism.

Bush administration officials and many political leaders in Washington
view terrorism primarily through the prism of war. Kill enough
militants, they believe, and the threat will go away. The opposite
approach is more effective and less costly in lives. Some limited use
of force to apprehend militants and destroy training camps is
legitimate, but unilateral war is not. In the three years since the
invasion of Iraq, the number of major terrorist incidents in the world
has increased sharply. War itself is a form of terrorism. Using
military force to counter terrorism is like pouring gasoline on a
fire. It ignites hatred and vengeance and creates a cycle of violence
that can spin out of control. A better strategy is to take away the
fuel that sustains the fire. Only nonviolent methods can do that, by
attempting to resolve the underlying political and social factors that
give rise to armed violence.

The most urgent priority for countering terrorism, experts agree, is
multilateral law enforcement to apprehend perpetrators and prevent
future attacks. Cooperative law enforcement and intelligence sharing
among governments have proven effective in reducing the operational
capacity of terrorist networks. Governments are also cooperating to
block financing for terrorist networks and deny safe haven, travel,
and arms for terrorist militants. These efforts are fully compatible
with the principles of nonviolence.

Terrorism is fundamentally a political phenomenon, concluded the U.N.
Working Group on Terrorism in 2002. To overcome the scourge, "it is
necessary to understand its political nature as well as its basic
criminality and psychology." This means addressing legitimate
political grievances that terrorist groups exploit - such as the
Israel-Palestine dispute, repressive policies by Arab governments, and
the continuing U.S. military occupation in Iraq. These deeply-held
grievances generate widespread political frustration and bitterness in
many Arab and Muslim countries, including among people who condemn
terrorism and al Qaeda's brutal methods. As these conditions fester
and worsen, support rises for the groups that resist them. Finding
solutions to these dilemmas can help to undercut support for jihadism.
The strategy against terrorism requires undermining the social base of
extremism by driving a wedge between militants and their potential
sympathizers. The goal should be to separate militants from their
support base by resolving the political injustices that terrorists
exploit.

A nonviolent approach should not be confused with appeasement or a
defeatist justification of terrorist crimes. The point is not to
excuse criminal acts but to learn why they occur and use this
knowledge to prevent future attacks. A nonviolent strategy seeks to
reduce the appeal of militants' extremist methods by addressing
legitimate grievances and providing channels of political engagement
for those who sympathize with the declared political aims. A two-step
response is essential: determined law enforcement pressure against
terrorist criminals, and active engagement with affected communities
to resolve underlying injustices. Ethicist Michael Walzer wrote,
counterterrorism "must be aimed systematically at the terrorists
themselves, never at the people for whom the terrorists claim to be
acting." Military attacks against potential sympathizers are
counterproductive and tend to drive third parties toward militancy.
Lawful police action is by its nature more discriminating and is more
effective politically because it minimizes predictable backlash
effects.

Gandhi's political genius was in understanding the power of third
party opinion. He did not try to challenge the British militarily but
instead organized mass resistance to weaken the political legitimacy
of the Raj. The nonviolent method, Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, undermines
the authority and "moral unction" of the adversary. Gandhi realized
that political struggles are ultimately a battle for hearts and minds.
In all his campaigns, he assiduously cultivated the support of third
parties by avoiding harm to the innocent and addressing legitimate
grievances. These are essential insights for the struggle against
terrorism. The fight will not be won on the battlefield. The more it
is waged on that front, the less likely it can be won. The goal of
U.S. strategy, said the 9/11 Commission, must be "prevailing over the
ideology that contributes to Islamic terrorism." Nonviolent resistance
is the opposite of and a necessary antidote to the ideology of extreme
violence. Gandhi often said, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world
blind." Better to keep our eyes open as we search for more effective
means of eroding support for extremism, while protecting the innocent
and bringing violent perpetrators to justice.

David Cortright is the author of Gandhi and Beyond: Nonviolence for an
Age of Terrorism (Paradigm Publishers, 2006) and co-founder of the
Center on Global Counter-Terrorism Cooperation.

Why won't America's environmentalists accept positive developments?

by Lisa Renstrom and Bob Perkowitz
10 Aug 2006

Wake Up and Smell the Progress
There are winners, there are losers, and there
are people who just don't get it.

If you've been paying attention, you know that in
spite of the best efforts of tens of thousands of
dedicated environmentalists and the spending of
literally hundreds of millions of philanthropic
dollars, the environment has been losing.

Hey greens, open your eyes. Not to stretch a
point, but if America's environmentalists were
more effective, we might not be suffering from
the wars and trade deficits our dependence on oil
brings. We might not be spending quite so much --
the highest percentage of GDP of any country in
the world -- on health care.

Face it: environmentalists have been outgunned
and outsmarted. But there is hope. Things are
starting to change. Powerful people with black
hats are trading them in for green capes.

Topping that list is the popular evangelical
minister Pat Robertson. He publicly stated last
week that, "We really need to address the burning
of fossil fuels. It is getting hotter, and the
icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of
carbon dioxide in the air. " That alone has to
give one pause. Could it be that the scientists
were right?

Then there's Frank Luntz, spinmeister
extraordinaire of the authoritarian Republicans,
recently admitting that, "It's now 2006. I think
most people would conclude that there is global
warming taking place and that the behavior of
humans are affecting the climate. " Say what?

If that isn't enough to challenge your worldview,
try Wal-Mart. No paragraph is long enough to
contain the cultural and environmental
destruction of their massively efficient
consumption and international worker exploitation
machine. But that self-same Wal-Mart is embarking
on a comprehensive sustainability program that
includes emission reductions and organics -- the
whole shebang.

And finally we have the Sierra Club, America's
preeminent environmental organization, daring to
endorse a Republican senator, Lincoln Chafee of
Rhode Island.

The conversion of Robertson, Luntz, and Wal-Mart
and the leadership of the Sierra Club are beyond
the cognitive dissonance resolution capabilities
of some environmentalists. All these people
getting in touch with reality is more progress
than some progressives can understand, much less
support.

Here in Grist last month, John Sellers and
Barbara Dudley, two credentialed
environmentalists, lamely took revenge on Adam
Werbach for his support of Wal-Mart's greening
efforts. Nearly two years ago, Adam spoke out in
the "Death of Environmentalism" controversy,
daring to criticize the movement for its myopia
and ineffectiveness. Unable to argue that the
movement actually was effective, Sellers and
Dudley finally found grounds on which they felt
they could challenge Werbach.

Then, in his "Centrism is for Suckers" column in
the New York Times on August 4, the otherwise
respectable Paul Krugman slugged the Sierra Club
for its Chafee endorsement. Republican moderates
like Chafee have repeatedly put their fingers in
the levees to slow the
Bush/Cheney/Inhofe/DeLay/Pombo flood of
environmental destruction. Krugman's criticism is
counterproductive.

Spend Your $. 02
Discuss this story in our blog, Gristmill. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/8/10/12426/4827

Sellers, Dudley, and Krugman need to get real. If
environmentalists want to win, we need to avoid
being ineffective, effete purists unable to
discern between real progress, bad policies, and
destructive demagoguery.

We all know that America has the financial and
technical wherewithal to stop global warming. We
can end our addiction to oil and get back on the
path to saving our natural legacy. It is,
however, going to take more time and be more
difficult if progressives become reactionary and
inhibit progress instead of supporting it.

Moan and groan if you want. We're heading over to
Wal-Mart.

- - - - - - - - - -

Lisa Renstrom is president of the Sierra Club.
Bob Perkowitz is president of ecoAmerica, a
trustee of The Sierra Club Foundation and of
Environmental Defense, and a partner at VivaTerra LLC.

What the Blogs Are Saying: Liquid Bomb Pakistan Link False Flag/Smoking Gun (PrisonPlanet.com)

Liquid Bomb Pakistan Link Is False Flag Smoking Gun Veracity of liquid explosives method also put under dubious doubt

Date: Aug 14, 2006 10:36 AM Subject: This will amaze and astonish you (or, maybe not, if observant and cynical)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/130806liquidbomb.htm

[Excerpt from above:] The Pakistani ISI is a CIA front and controls terror cells at the discretion of the highest levels of the US military-industrial complex. This means that the potential mastermind of the liquid bomb plot, Rashid Rauf (pictured), was operating under the oversight and direction of Pakistani and by proxy American intelligence agencies.

To understand why the Pakistan link strongly indicates that Thursday morning's terror alert was a manufactured ruse, it is necessary to understand the the nexus that connects Pakistani intelligence, the CIA and terrorist organizations.

In October 2001, under the headline 'Pakistani Intelligence Had Links to Al Qaeda, U.S. Officials Say,' the New York Times reported, "The intelligence service of Pakistan, a crucial American ally in the war on terrorism, has had an indirect but longstanding relationship with Al Qaeda, turning a blind eye for years to the growing ties between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, according to American officials."

The ISI has received CIA funds to create and control militant organizations, including the Taliban and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Funds transferred from Pakistan bankrolled the alleged 9/11 hijackers before the attack. Ahmad Umar Sheikh wired $100,000 from Karachi to alleged lead hijacker Mohammed Atta at the behest of ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmad. If this isn't a direct link from the ISI to Al-Qaeda then nothing is.

Porter Goss, later appointed as director of the CIA, was having breakfast with the money man behind the terrorists as the planes crashed on the morning of 9/11. Ahmad had also met with top defense and intelligence officials in Washington in the days before the attack, including then CIA director George Tenet, Pentagon officials, and White House personnel.

The fact that the Pakistani financier of the alleged hijackers was meeting with the top brass of the US government in the week before the attack was never investigated by the 9/11 Commission.

See also: Indian Times Again Highlights Goss-Hijackers Link http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/110804againhighlights.htm Times of India | August 11 2004

<Snip>

Goss is well-clued to issues in the Indian sub-continent, although he is said to take the conventional American view about the vital role Pakistan has in the war on terrorism without examining how and why the country became a magnet for terrorists.

Most controversially, Goss was having a breakfast meeting in Washington with the then ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmad at the exact instant the 9/11 hijackers flew their planes into the World Trade Center. Ahmad was a Taliban supporter who was subsequently removed from his job when he continued to bat for the outlaw regime post 9/11.

Some reports have suggested that Ahmad and the ISI had links to -- or foreknowledge about -- 9/11. A money transfer from Karachi to the hijackers in Florida has never been fully explored or explained. Ahmad was never called to account for this or his support to the Taliban post 9/11 even as General Musharraf moved him into the shadows.

See also: http://www.prisonplanet.com/new_revelations_on_911.htm

Additional excerpt from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/130806liquidbomb.htm

This rich history of ISI creation and protection of terrorist cells, allied with the fact that the ISI is a known CIA front, and added to the revelation that the mastermind of the liquid bomb plot Rashid Rauf is under ISI control, it is therefore obvious to conclude that the entire charade was cooked and orchestrated by elements of the Bush/Blair cabal and sold as promotional propaganda for the increased surveillance and behavioral control of UK and US citizens.

At the very least, the terror cell had been fully infiltrated for months - this has already been admitted - and the snap "foiling" of the attack was coordinated and stage-managed for purposes of political grandstanding on the part of Bush, Blair and the Neo-Fascist apparatus that seeks to use the ailing justification of the war on terror for a future military incursion into Iran.

Another dimension to the indication that we are being fed another hoax, are reports detailing the alleged plot's links to the 7/7 London bombings.

As this website has exhaustively documented for over a year, the 7/7 bombings and the patsies that were used to take the fall for them, were controlled and engineered by the British intelligence apparatus.

The alleged ringleader of the attack which targeted three tube trains and one bus, Mohammed Siddique Khan, was an MI5 informant, according to former London Metropolitan Police detective and terror expert Charles Shoebridge. Therefore, in the case of the liquid bomb plot suspects, any link to the London bombers is a link to MI5.

It is clear that the scope of the attack has been greatly exaggerated by the British government to maximize fear and subservience engendered by images of alarmed and frightened airliner passengers.

Doomsday proclamations of ten planes exploding into balls of flames in mid-air do not correlate with the capacity of the liquid explosives the alleged terrorists were to use.

The only other example where terrorists used liquid explosives was the December 1994 Philippines Airline Boeing 747 incident, a dry run for a bigger plot conducted by Ramzi Youssef.

In this case, Youssef planted the explosives explosives under one of the seats in the airliner and timed them to detonate after he disembarked for a connecting flight. The subsequent explosion killed only the Japanese businessman who was sitting directly above the bomb. Besides five people with minor injuries, the other 200-plus passengers were unharmed and the plane landed safely.

Only liquid explosives in large and noticeable amounts can have any literal chance of "blowing up" a plane in mid-air. Confiscating pregnant white women's lip gloss is completely insane and proves in itself that the new airport measures are purely designed to act as a PR coup for the police state.

In addition, photographs of passengers being ordered to pour liquids into one single container completely belies the claim that the alleged terrorists planned to mix the liquids to create the deadly explosives. If mixing liquids was a key component of the bomb making process then why are airport security ordering people to mix liquids?

World Affairs Brief editor Joel Skousen highlights prescient questions about the inconsistencies of the properties of the alleged liquid explosives in relation to the much vaunted scale of the foiled attack.

"The supposed explosive device this time was a Peroxide-based explosive, which is mildly explosive and can be prepared from acetone, hydrogen Peroxide, and an acid catalyst. This type is claimed by governments to be "widely in use by terrorist groups," though we have no known terrorist events where it has been used, except by one Palestinian terrorist, and then as a detonator only-not as the main charge. This explosive material is usually known by its abbreviation TATP (Tri Acetone Tri Peroxide)," writes Skousen.

"Both Peroxide and Acetone are clear liquids, but acetone (laquer thinner) is easily identifiable by smell and its high rate of evaporation. Experts indicate it is very unstable and highly unlikely to be a stand-alone explosive to take down an airliner. The quantities would have to be large enough to be easily noticed. Thus, even though this is a theoretical threat, banning all cosmetics and lotions is stupid and banning all liquids is unnecessary. Only clear liquids need checking. There is cheap test equipment for TATP, and simple ways for TSA employees to quickly check for acetone and peroxide."

Returning to how the latest plot is a mirror image of Operation Bojinka - the Ramzi Youssef link is also telling because Youssef has been protected and coddled by the US government at every juncture.

In September of 1992 Youssef entered the US with Ahmad Ajaj. Ajaj's luggage contained documents on how to make bombs and was stuffed with fake passports and ID's. Ajaj was arrested - amazingly Youssef was released.

Youssef later masterminded the WTC '93 bombing with the gracious help of FBI agents. Having penetrated the group before the bombing, the FBI's mole, Emad Salem, was told to arm the terror cell with dummy explosives so a sting operation could ensnare the perpetrators. Salem was mystified when the orders changed, the sting was called off and the FBI allowed the bombing to go forward. This was all admitted in an October 1993 New York Times front page story.

Again, any Operation Bojinka or Ramzi Youssef link in the case of the liquid bomb plot is a link back to western intelligence agencies.

Within three days of its exposure, Tony Blair and MI5 are already milking the alleged plot for political purposes in re-introducing the argument for 90-day detention without charge legislation. Blair suffered his only defeat to date in the Commons last November when the bill was shot down by Labour rebels - a humiliating rejection of the so-called 'liberal' government's feverish bloodlust for authoritarian control.

Reports of criminal insider trading on airline stocks before the announcement of the alleged foiled plot, specifically British Airways stocks, have also started to filter in and will be the subject of a follow-up investigation.

The Beginning Of The End For The War In Iraq [The Day]

by Scott Bates

From Baghdad to Connecticut, the signs are clear.

America's war in Iraq is over. Historians will likely point to the summer of 2006 as the moment when the unlimited United States commitment to building a democratic, pro-American Iraq came to an end. Evidence of the end could be found in the halls of Congress, the streets of Baghdad and in the voting booths of Connecticut.

Testifying before the U.S. Senate , U.S. Army Gen. John Abizaid, the man responsible for our troops in Iraq, dropped a bombshell. When asked if Iraq is slipping in to civil war, Abizaid said, "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular. It is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."

Great Britain's Ambassador to Iraq was not even that optimistic saying that "Iraq was more likely headed to sectarian partition and low intensity civil war than a stable democracy."

Caught in the middle of a bitter civil war based on centuries-old ethnic and religious based hatreds is not where U.S. forces should find themselves. Sensing a shift in events on the ground in Iraq and in American public opinion at home, the Democratic leadership in Congress announced this month that they are united in their belief that U.S. troops should begin departing Iraq within the next four months. Twelve Democratic leaders in Congress announced in a joint statement that "Iraqi political leaders must be informed that America's patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited." On Tuesday, Democratic voters in Connecticut voiced their approval of this policy.

Connecticut Democrats stunned the political world by voting against an 18-year incumbent U.S. senator for his full-throated support for staying the course in Iraq. This earthquake in Connecticut has been felt by every Democrat in Congress. You can be sure that Democratic leaders in Congress saw in the Connecticut vote, ratification of their belief that America's open-ended commitment to Iraq must end.

Chances are better than average that Democrats are likely to win back seats, and possibly gain control, in the U.S Congress this November. Washington's official handicapper of Congressional campaigns, Charlie Cook, recently opined that if current trends continued, Republicans are facing a "rout." The popular energy of the Democratic base electorate that nominated Ned Lamont may well propel Democrats into power in Congress, guaranteeing an end to "staying the course" in Iraq. Even Republicans like U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel are calling for a way out of our occupation duty in the Middle East. Change is in the air and not a moment too soon.

So far this summer, over 6,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq. This killing has taken place after the capture and trial of Saddam Hussein, after multi-party elections, after the formation of a sovereign Iraqi government and after the killing of the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. The evidence is clear that the majority of violence and instability in Iraq today is not as President Bush would have us believe from al-Qaida. Instead, Iraq is in fact entering the low intensity civil war of which Britain's Ambassador notified his government.

Whether Iraq will descend into the utter chaos of a civil war is a political question for the Iraqi people to decide and beyond the control of the current U.S. forces deployed in that far away land. There is little American troops can do to prevent a civil war in Iraq. We must hope that Iraq's leaders and their people step back from the abyss of civil war and take their destiny into their own hands.

We must however create a new plan based on American interests that fits the reality on the ground in Baghdad. We must return to focusing on winning the war on terror, which means destroying the terrorists of al-Qaida. Rather than have our forces perform occupation duty in Iraq, which serves as a recruiting tool for Osama Bin Laden, we should focus our troops on fighting the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11.

We can accomplish these goals by redeploying our forces in southern Iraq to support operations against the resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Some intelligence and Special Forces assets could be re-directed from Iraq to join the hunt for Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A reduced U.S. military force in Iraq could be redeployed to a few secure locations in the Kurdish north and desert areas near Baghdad to serve as launching pads for strikes against al-Qaida in Iraq and to provide air support and training for Iraqi government forces.

The war in Iraq, as America has been fighting it, looks like it is coming to an end. Perhaps now our leaders can see the situation in Iraq for what it is, and not what they wish it to be and find the courage and new ideas to act in America's long-term interests.

[Scott Bates is vice president of the Center for National Policy and a professor of homeland security and defense at the National Defense Univerity in Washington, D.C. He is a resident of Stonington.]

(c) 1998-2006 The Day Publishing Co.

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=093383eb-59f4-44b3-94a9-a0a7959f4be9

What the West's only communist nation has done right

by Erica Gies

[The author's report on Cuba -- copied below from Grist Magazine -- is supported to a large extent by our observations when we visited Cuba in the last week of December, 2001 through the first week of January, 2002 (as part of a local college study tour). We had unrestructed access and freedom of movement and met with ordinary people and numerous representatives of Cuban organizations -- both public and private. -- Rick Mitchell]

High Fidelity: What the West's only communist nation has done right 09 Aug 2006

Reports that Fidel Castro turned over power to his brother Raul last week because of surgery for intestinal bleeding have brought a flashback to the Cold War, with reporters rushing to doodle prematurely on his grave and interview the vociferous hard-right Miami expat constituency that has helped dictate U.S.-Cuba policy for the last 47 years. But they're missing a vital part of the story.

Tired of my government's hyperbole on the subject, I visited Cuba not long ago. I wanted to see it for myself and draw my own conclusions, before Castro died and the United States annexed it as a Sandals resort.

Reports of Cuba's denigration are greatly exaggerated by people with ideological fish to fry. Cuba is no North Korea, and Castro is no Kim Jong Il. No, it's not a perfect system -- the most obvious, insurmountable issue being that its 11.4 million people are basically held prisoner on that island. Freedom of speech, press, and assembly are severely restricted, and there are no free elections. These are not circumstances I wish for myself, nor for the people of Cuba.

However, the people have not risen up against Castro for several reasons. OK, one reason is that he has allowed dissenters to leave in several waves, and has taken a stern hand against resident dissidents who don't hew to his view. But there's another reason, and it's just as important. Cuba had a long history of imperial domination by Spain and then the U.S., with just a few short years of not-so-democratic democracy before Batista's coup and Castro's revolution. Since 1959, Castro has delivered on many of the revolution's promises of equality, and the state has provided for the people in ways that often go unrecognized. Today, its approaches to public health and the environment could be a model worth following.

Castro just had surgery. He was in a good place for it. Cuba has one of the best medical systems in the world, with twice as many physicians per capita as the U.S. Its infant mortality rate and life expectancy are about the same as in the U.S., and its HIV/AIDS prevalence is almost nonexistent. The country also donates its medical expertise abroad: it made a huge contribution to the Pakistan earthquake-relief effort, sending 2,500 medical personnel. It even offers free medical training for students from disadvantaged areas of the U.S., provided they agree to return home and work in low-income neighborhoods. A political gotcha maneuver? Well, naturally. Fidel is a sly guy. But the mostly non-white and female doctors who otherwise wouldn't get a chance to practice medicine are grateful, and Cubans take a great deal of pride in the program.

Cubans also enjoy a level of race and gender equality that I haven't seen anywhere else in my travels through 24 other countries. The revolution's principles of equal pay and equal opportunity for all have woven themselves into the social fabric. Because many who benefited under Batista were white or of Spanish descent, they were the majority who left during the first wave of emigration. Today, Cuba has a slight black or biracial majority. Interracial dating is commonplace, and kids of every color play together. People of every shade and both sexes are liable to hold any job. Most don't live in fancy digs, but no one is homeless.

It may be the country's environmental gains, driven by economic necessity, that are most impressive. Cuba is the only country in the world to have converted to organic agriculture in less than 10 years. On my travels, I saw fields near Viñales where corn and beans were grown together for better pest control. I also glimpsed the network of small, urban gardens that augments the country's agricultural system, the beginnings of which are chronicled in a book called The Greening of the Revolution.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba lost $4 billion to $6 billion in annual support, including food, farming equipment, pesticides, and petroleum. Facing severe shortages, the country had to rapidly convert its fields to food crops; since there was no money for chemical inputs, farmers learned organic methods instead.

It was hard for several years. Food was scarce, and public sentiment turned against Castro. He called it the Special Period in Time of Peace, which basically meant suffering wartime scarcities without war. But by the late '90s, the system was up and running. In 1999, the Grupo de Agricultura Organica, the organic farming association that spearheaded the conversion, won an important international honor -- the Right Livelihood Award, known as the "alternative Nobel."

Castro knows how to make lemonade. After the collapse, when the Soviets were unable to supply fuel and the giant autopista (think: autobahn) running the length of the country lay empty because no one had access to gas, he bought 1.2 million bicycles from China and manufactured 500,000 more, distributing them to the people. Most didn't know how to ride, and accidents were common. But the government gave classes, and people got the hang of it. When I visited, bikers expertly threaded their way through classic American cars, horse-cart buses, pedicabs, and Coco taxis -- not quite with the fearless bravado of riders in Asia, but with more laid-back flair.

The government also passed a law dictating that government vehicles must pick up as many hitchhikers as they can fit. It's common to see 30 people standing up in the back of an industrial truck rattling along a road. Unfortunately, it's also common to see people standing on the side of the autopista all day, fruitlessly waiting for the ride that never materializes. While the cities are filled with all kinds of random conveyances -- including giant buses called camelos (camels) that can hold 200 people -- getting between cities is a bit more of a problem.

While this devotion to alternative transportation is a step in the right direction, many vehicles in Cuba are still 1950s-era gas-guzzlers. In fact, air pollution has increased since 1990. This is particularly noticeable in crowded Havana. In other places, however, the relative scarcity of combustion engines offers clear vistas and easy breathing. And Cuba's per-capita CO2 output is one-tenth that of the U.S. While Castro's oil-bearing friend in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, may help up that ratio slightly, his input isn't likely to have a dramatic effect any time soon.

Outside the cities, pristine land seems to abound, and that extends to underwater areas. I went to Guanahacabibes National Park and got a fantastic five-hour tour of unusually eroded limestone caves and related habitat from the ranger, who had extensive botanical, biological, and geological knowledge. I also went scuba diving off Maria La Gorda, part of the Guanahacabibes Biosphere Reserve, designated in 1987. The waters there have been recognized as among the healthiest in the Caribbean, due in part to limited coastal development. The sea fans are flourishing, the tube sponges are neon green, and the corals have retained their color -- unlike so many places around the world, where they are bleached.

So is Cuba in a position to show other countries -- especially its neighbor to the north -- how to succeed with health-care reform, sustainable agriculture, alternative transportation, and protected ecosystems? Maybe, but only if those countries put aside their broken-record, Cold War-era reactions and really listen.

Cuba's system has obvious flaws, but many charges against Castro -- suppression of dissent, torture of enemies, backroom dealings with nefarious world players -- can be made against certain other leaders as well. As Castro approaches what the U.S. government euphemistically calls "the biological solution," let's try to look at his Cuba clearly, to realistically evaluate the revolution's successes and failures -- and perhaps even learn something. With some members of the Bush administration champing at the bit to widen their democracy experiment to Cuba, let's remember how audacious it is to assume that there is only one true way.

- - - - - - - - - -

Erica Gies is a freelance environmental writer who lives in San Francisco, Calif.

NYTimes.com: The Plot Against America

by Dexter Filkins

A review of "The Looming Tower," a book about Osama bin Laden and the plot against America.

[Excerpted from the review:]
The events of Sept. 11, 2001, were in many ways less the start of a
tale than the end of one, or at least the climax of one, begun many
years before in many different precincts: in the middle-class suburbs
of Cairo, in the mosques of Hamburg, in Jidda, in Islamabad, in the
quiet university town of Greeley, Colo.

In its simplest terms, this is the story of how a small group of men,
with a frightening mix of delusion and calculation, rose from a
tormented civilization to mount a catastrophic assault on the world's
mightiest power, and how another group of men and women, convinced that such an attack was on the way, tried desperately to stop it.

What a story it is. And what a riveting tale Lawrence Wright fashions
in this marvelous book. "The Looming Tower" is not just a detailed,
heart-stopping account of the events leading up to 9/11, written with
style and verve, and carried along by villains and heroes that only a
crime novelist could dream up. It's an education, too — though you'd
never know it — a thoughtful examination of the world that produced
the men who brought us 9/11, and of their progeny who bedevil us
today. The portrait of John O'Neill, the driven, demon-ridden F.B.I.
agent who worked so frantically to stop Osama bin Laden, only to
perish in the attack on the World Trade Center, is worth the price of
the book alone. "The Looming Tower" is a thriller...

BOOKS / SUNDAY BOOK REVIEW | August 6, 2006
The Plot Against America
www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/books/review/06filkins.html

Review by DEXTER FILKINS
Lawrence Wright offers a detailed, heart-stopping account of the
events leading up to 9/11, carried along by villains and heroes that
only a crime novelist could dream up.
CLICK ON ABOVE LINK TO READ THE REVIEW.