1) Diplomatic and UN resolution to S11 was scotched - it may be resurrected but that is not within our power. 2) A determined military action has taken place. 3) The military action has set in train a huge social disaster which can only get worse if the state of play remains as it is (as I said it already has condemened to death thousands regardless of what is done next). 3) The startegy for this military action is:
a)pointless - it does not bring about the resolution desired.
b) inhumane - it is bound to kill innocents, in fact, in the search for targets a greater proportion as time goes on.
--- Message Received --- From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 07:26:44 +0000 Subject: Arguments for ground war
This does look like an important argument about how leftists postion themselves in relation to the 80%, shall we say at least the majority, of the population.
We need to accept the reality of the strength of feeling but analyse which parts of it with which to ally, and which significant voices to amplify.
Part of the reaction is shock and mourning. Once the anger has been acknowledged as not at all surprising (this was a terroristic attack after all, and designed to provoke) then it is easier to unite with the sadness and the sense of vulnerability. Mourning ceremonies can unite people in a sense of the fragility of life, as well as being used to bolster narrow minded tribal attitudes separating your group from the evil enemy.
But Greg goes on to put an ironic and perhaps even a sarcastic argument. It think there is more than a germ of truth in it. It resonates with the revulsion millions of people felt about the Kosovo war although some at least felt that the bully with bombs from 30,000 feet might just possibly rescue a million refugees.
Now that argument for a "just war" goes strongly against any continuation of the present initiative.
Greg's argument essentially could unite with those who think that terrorism like the attack on the WTC should not go unpunished, but that if world powers claim to be doing that, it should be much more like a police action, than a war. Otherwise more innocent civilians are likely to be killed by the racing police cars.
What to do now? Senior British military figures are actively leaking, no publically discussing, the limitations of a ground war. Leftists can focus their arguments that yes armed police action escorted by armed troops could well be necessary for apprehending terrorists, but it must be proportionate and not foolhardy.
If the Empire confirms its intention to intervene militarily. every photograph of the death of a civilians is legitimate criticism, and a powerful argument that from its own point of view this is counterproductive. [I am very much favour not just using humanitarian arguments, as this may appear narrowly pacifist and sectarian and separate leftists from the rest of the population, who suddenly say what about my cousin!] The best arguments are ones that "we" (as a globe, a multitude) are against tragic and unnecessary loss of life, but that we expect those who step forward as champions of Imperial Peace, to accept the responsibility to try to enforce peace rationally.
Yes, I agree with Greg, the left should challenge the hegemons that if an armed job has to be done, employees of those hegemons should be placing themselves at risk, rather than leaving all the risks to be borne by the victims of high level bombing.
I think it is clear that the debate within global civil society is in any case proceeding powerfully in this direction.
But to the extent that readers of this list have any conscious influence, however small, on what to amplify and what to inhibit in the area of public discourse to which we have access, then, what are the consequences of this tactical adjustment?
We cannot predict exactly what Blair and Bush, and perhaps more signficantly their advisers are likely to argue about, but this tactical and strategic approach is likely to further inhibit the hegemon's scope for rash high level bombing.
The bombing may be forced to focus on front line Taliban troops, with the claim that the regime is failing to hand highly suspect terrorists over for investigation. But then the argument should move on to ask why can there not be negotiations to move them to a neutral territory. [Or better still back to Saudi Arabia to be tried under islamic law by a regime that the US would have to respect as it would not want oil supplies cut off?]
This tactical argument could arguably leave the door open for a parachute drop of armed forces to seize and defend certain communication routes, which would impair the ease of some Taliban communications, and arguably help diplomatic skirmishing about a successor government. The risk would be that such a position could be surrounded by Taliban troops carefully emitting no heat sources in the depth of the Afghan winter, who would recreate, but in mountainous terrain, the historic fall of imperial armed power at Dien Bien Phu.
But let them discuss it. I agree with the positive essence of Greg's challenging post that if armed police action is to be taken, then the imperial authorities should ethically be prepared to put the lives of their own people at risk, if that is a rational way of minimising risk to the people of the world.
Otherwise it will be safer for the average citizen of the US, UK or Australia to hand the whole operation over to the United Nations, and delegate full powers to levy finances directly from the people of the world, for peace making forces.
And when the US has its back against the wall, that is a much more powerful argument than would have appeared one year ago.
Yes, if the war is just, let it be a ground war immediately!
Chris Burford London