So what do we say on the left, maintain our purity with an easy line and do nothing to end the genocide?
If we simply say peace, what are we also saying - Iraq type sanctions! Under these conditions that is all a "peace slogan" adds up to and in the conditions of Afghanistan that means again genocide. Afghanistan has not even the industrial backbone of Iraq, it is overwhelmingly a peasant economy, that has been displaced, has lost its stores, abandoned its fields and is in the midst of a famine - peace with sanctions would be mass murder.
The peace slogan by itself at this stage means withdrawing the planes and imposing killing sanctions - I believe that this is a continuation of siege and the preferred Pentagon method.
We do not set agendas but are forced to respond to those set by others. In this case peace has been ruled out altogether. Peace in America simply translates to no Americans risking their lives it does not mean an end to death, in fact, it would mean is escalation.
The Pentagon fears a ground war and for good reason - its current tactics of genocide are not accidental and once it ties of them it will bring up sanctions as night follows day - this is what peace is translated into unless the whole question is exploded - I do not want to see another Iraq, and it is not a two stage question - if the bombing stops nobody will listen to us about sanctions and the TV cameras will be turned off and so no-one will see the deaths of 100s of thousands - this is not serving the people of the world.
So in essence if we are to be consistent and not value US lives higher than that of Afghans, then we have to say end the siege and invade before winter sets in. In terms of slogans if it has to be reduced to such things then "END THE GEANOICIDAL SIEGE - INVADE OR WITHDRAW COMPLETELY!" would seem to hit at the nub of the problem.
This approach has the practical effect of beginning discussion with what is actually going on and legitimizing critical thought. The simple peace message does not enter debate, cannot enter it because of the way it has been framed, it will be viewed as an opinion external to reality and outside the body politic.
Political analysis must follow the realities as they emerge and attempt to anticipate them. People know that bombing is horrible and not the way to go - we have to give this a voice, a voice which comes from where people find themselves (some against the war option, but apparently the majority for it), this is the water in which we swim. Ground war is an option which as winter comes upon Afghanistan must be considered a better option for the people of Afghanistan than this siege.
Greg Schofield Perth Australia
--- Message Received --- From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 08:14:17 -0600 Subject: Re: Arguments for ground war -- HUH?
I'm confused. Are some people on this list pretending that they are working in the Pentagon and exchanging inter-office memos? Of what concern to us are arguments for or against a ground war? We are concerned with developing the opposition to any war at all of any kind.
Carrol