I can only call the problem that of displaced vision Dear Hakki, I have just reread your post sometime after first replying as something was nagging me in the logic of your contribution which needed to be addressed.
I can only call the problem that of displaced vision where American concerns loom large and the rest of the world rather small. The suggestion I made that the US should stop bombing and commence a ground war where I believe it will get a very bloody nose is seen only from the perspective of calling for the death of US soldiers while ignoring the fact that the worst tragedy is already unfolding and will lead to the death of thousands upon thousands of Afghans due to cold and starvation.
I agree that the reason the use quickly reached for its bombs was more to do with oil pipelines than anything much to do with S11.
But you wish to have it two ways, supporting (rather pushing this) ground war you see as falling into the clique's ambition, but maintaining what they are actually doing does not (the bombing sanction approach). In this context "peace" can only mean maintaining the siege without bombing (even if the US goes to the "peaceful" option it will be a choice not something forced onto it) and that means in Afghanistan this winter mass genocide.
So again I am at loss as you seem to be supporting the regimes strategy, which a ground war disrupts. The problem is the slow death now being inflicted on Afghanistan, something that a "peaceful" solution would maintain. A truly peaceful solution would be a complete US back off and the use of legal means (which would probably fail for lack of evidence, not that I really care), if you think this at all likely - what can I say except I disagree completely.
The other things is that there are many things less terrible than soldiers dying. In fact, this is readily ascertained by talking to any serving soldier by simply asking if a soldier's life is worth as much as a baby's - no soldier worth their salt would hesitate in claiming the baby is more worth while - that has what has become the exchange rate in this conflict - dead soldiers on the hope of saving some kids that will die unless something dramatic happens is the market that has been established by human foolishness and nature.
Australian troops are now involved so I am not being particularly anti-american in this, but I know well enough that our troops would willing risk themselves in order to bring an end to this tragedy one way or another - I do not think less of US troops. I am very cynical about the military option it will set in train other contradictions, but the certainty of siege this winter is a holocaust in the making
So I will put it to you exactly what do you mean, and how do you mean to accomplish it.
I am resigned that there probably will not be a ground war and that 100's of thousands will die this winter. I cannot bring myself to become a "peacenik" when I know damn well this does little or nothing to end the stupidity and may be a nice cover for the bombing to stop but the killing to proceed. To me that is hypocrisy.
It is not the bombing but the siege which must stop and there are only two ways of ending a siege - leave the field or invade. The powers that be declare loudly that they cannot leave the field so the actual options are down to one - invade and live with the consequences (instead of killing and avoiding the consequences - sanctions/bombing).
I will also point to Lenin a little, he desired peace but through defeatism, I am forced into the same situation, a bloody conflict will bring peace through defeat, and the body bags in the west and mass graves of Afghan warriors seems like the price that is being demanded for peace by the very cliches which started this mess. That is far preferable to the silent deaths of innocents that is now underway.
Most of all the left needs to grow up and not embrace naive feel-good purity.
Greg Schofield Perth Australia
--- Message Received --- From: "Hakki Alacakaptan" <nucleus at superonline.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:07:18 +0200 Subject: RE: Arguments for ground war
Nothing like body bags to erode that 80% support and give the Afghans the revenge they are itching for, right? But is getting those poor grunts torn apart for their imperialist masters' folly a defensible cause for the left? Bear in mind that world opinion has swung sharply against this war and that the US is alone (except for Israel, which is not a party) from now on. Why not just stick to a morally unambiguous and simple opposition to this imperialist war when you have the whole world on your side? Unpatriotic? What does this pipeline war have to do with patriotism except in the mystified minds of the US public?
It's obvious to everyone that getting ObL is almost impossible and even if it were, it would just make things much worse. The Taliban are the only people who can deliver him and this war that Dubya was in such a hurry to start has made that impossible. The clique that ordered this war want a)a regime in Afghanistan that will allow the pipeline construction and ensure its safe operation b)ObL dead so that, among other things, he can't talk about his adventures as a CIA agent. Any movement that supports anything that will serve this clique's ends, such as a ground war, will be compromised and historically condemned.
The Ugly American is back and the world is getting those rotten tomatoes ready, so make sure you don't get any on your face.
Hakki Alacakaptan
|| -----Original Message-----
|| From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
|| [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Greg Schofield
|| 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 (...)
||
|| Greg Schofield
|| Perth Australia
||
||
||
||
|| --- Message Received ---
|| From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
|| To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com (...)
||
|| Yes, if the war is just, let it be a ground war immediately!
||
||
|| Chris Burford
|| London
||
||