I admit to be a little sarcastic, but only a little. The irony I don't think is mine but in reality and this is where we need a reality check.
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 strategy for this military action (bombing) 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.
c) makes the humantarian crisis even worse and disbars any real attempt to help.
d) is cowardly as it is murderous.
By the way anyone who believes the Northern Alliance is willing to act as a proxy misreads Afghan history, the alliance was its enemies punished in order to get a stronger position in the country, it is more than happy to defend its homelands and if the path is made for it to walk into Kabul, but there is no desire to become someones elses front.
Our choices are to demand what has already been passed over and to that extent has been given passive approval (war was accepted and change foreign policy, pursue legalistic means and diplomacy was rejected), I think this is pissing in the wind - as the equation is do nothing (hence sympathise with terrorism) OR take military action which is equated to do something, this is not reasonable but it is how the whole campaign has been framed. This is the equation we are faced with peaceful means has been abandoned by the US. While the alternative to war is part and parcel in presenting a position it also has to be stated that the decision has been forcefully made not to go down that route so it is a bit silly having it as our only plank.
The current military approach is insufferable - this is the critical point - it solves nothing (all the military targets were eliminated in the first day - ie important implacements - not dropping tons of bombs on a trench - this is just shameful). There is a ground swell of public opinion, informed by past experience, which takes the war as a given but rejects bombing as a solution - this is very important. Bound up in this is the humanitarian disatster which is so much bigger than the effects of bombing
They (the US) have got themselves into a position where they are stuck, we should unstick the problem, they are not allowing us any other option. Having embarked on a military escapade it must be continued as a ground campaign at least through the coming winter. 1)The reasons for this are that a military advance will allow secure humanitarian aid (this is the most important aspect) - it secures a route for aid and points of concentration. 2) An on the ground campaign at least makes it within the realms of possiblity to attain what has been desired (which bombing will never do) - I am not saying how likely this is but it does present a direct line between desire and action which bombing does not. 3) It takes direct responsiblity back to the miliary for what is done (bombing attempts to throw responsibility to act on the regime being bombed - it thus has no iniative), that is the force is directly linked to the objective and what is done falls within the sphere of that force (starving people become a military responsiblity when both are on the ground).
Now I would add to this, given the state of play - the US will get a very bloody nose and may well not succeed - but then as a power it choose this route and should be forced to follow it seeing it has cut-off all other routes and the current conditions (bombing) is the worst case scenario (it will make humantarian efforts impossible on any scale).
My hope is that it gets such a bloody nose it learns how to behave and changes its way, alternatively it may secure Bin Laden and the whole thing could be spun down quickly - either way this is better than what is going on (the bombing will provoke even more terriorism and why shouldn't it. If I was being bombed from 30,000 feet and could not do anything about it I would tempted to take the violence to the where the bombers originate - I can't see why Afghans would think differently on this). Bombing makes it worse while not getting closer to any solution - this a majority of people are already concluding in the US alliance.
Now the important part of this is that we are not players, we have to make a role for ourselves. In the long run anti-war position will win, but may not do anything to bring it about - this is the critical thing - can we with the small intellectual force actually matter and move things along to their final conclusion - I believe we can but only if we declare the assumption that there is a war which is killing people but not actually moving (in otherwords it is organised slaughter not politics by other means - I count those that starve on the casuality lists).
So without irony I declare myself for a ground war to break the deadlock, in full knowledge that the US may well suffer a defeat (that is after all the nature of war) and that in the process Pakistan and probably a great number of regimes will fall and the world will be forced back to legal means and non-violent resolutions in this area. I put this forward as the most human and practical resolution when the major player refuses to step back and move things forward itself (ie towards more legalistic solutions).
I would add to this, by saying that fracturing the American alliance is also important and this can be done by insisting that America take the lead on the ground. In Australia I would be saying it is a US fight if they expect our help they should be putting American lives at risk - the same could be said in the UK - we should act as allies not as expendable shock troops (which is how the US wants to treat both the UK and Australian troops). To the USA I would say, stop hiding behind your sham alliances, your country has made its decision, it has choosen the sword, now use it or leave the field - the siege of Afghanistan must come to an end - genocide is not acceptable.
Sorry Chris and others, the more I think on this the more passionate I become.
Greg Schofield Perth Australia
--- 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