Yoshie, this seems to be the point:
"The U.S. government will commit more ground troops and bring more aid, advice, & air support with them. Why should leftists like you argue for what they are going to do in any case?"
Will it? I thought the most it was considering was a few cammando raids, dropped and picked up as an arm of the air war.
The US seems to want to fight a proxy war just so it can avoid the real problems (by air or via the Northern Alliance). It has ruled out any peaceful resolution so what are we left with but to put forward what should be done. Obviously if the US just wants to put a single toe on the soil it will have as much air cover as it can provide (that is tactical air support). IT is this strategic bombing combined with closed borders and no actual front or territory of occupation which combined is bottling up those thousand's of people to die.
So why should leftists even consider saying anything at all on the situation? We run no-risks by sticking to a simple anti-war message.
We occupy a commentor's position, not by choice but by history. We have no-force to dispose except good-sense and honesty. It may well be true that by sticking to a simple peace position the world may gradually come to the same opinion (that is it is essentially a passive political position, hoping that with the turn of events the fact that we kept the warm fires of peace burning this will help others.
In reality when and if a significant number of people come to the idea of withdrawal and won't really matter how long we have been standing there saying the same thing.
As commentators we have to reveal the actual and full contradictions and to do so means drawing attention to the real effect of the war. What rolls from this is what can be done (under the material conditions we suffer), for that informs the true extent of those contradictions (no-one is going to do it because we say it, though it might happen because it has been said).
Before the air-war begun, on Pen-L someone argued very strongly for a military solution. It was easy enough to show how that would roll into a major war of occupation if this was pursued (used as an argument for not pursuing war), now that it has come to pass and the logic still stands.
No one is saying occupation, invasion, real ground war (as against Boy's Own Annual commando ventures), they are not saying it precisely because of the contradictions it reveals and in this we aid and abet them in their bloody work by remaining silent.
The reason the left must say it (but probably won't) is that cuts to the heart of the matter, challenges not only their reasons for going to war but the way they carry it out (which are not two disconnected things). But more than this is the fact that as strange as it might sound it is the most humane option taken that the US will not desist.
I will use just a couple of illustrations: First Iraq. Regardless of the fact that Kuwait really is the bottom bit of Iraq, regardless of the fact that the invasion was taken on behest of a mass murderer, and because the US overwhelmed the garrison and routed the army, at that point, when the Iraq had been all but defeated, it was a crime not to take Baghdad and topple the regime. At that point the US suddenly became peaceful and the cameras were turned off and people really began their suffering (at the hands of Sadaam and the sanctions).
It is at that point we should have said - finalise the war. Now I am under no illusions if the US had done this the replacement regime would not be one we would like, but it would be a much better situation for the people of Iraq and the West would be faced with the necessity to take some responsibility for what it had done and this would be important also. Instead the left kept on about peace regardless of the circumstances, a cover for the actual plans to punish the people of Iraq.
Second East Timor. We prattled on here in Australia about independence, about the oppression of the East Timorese people and then a vote is organized, organisied in such a way as to further terrorize the people and end up abducting a large section of the population still held as hostages in Indonesia, we were frankly taken by surprise. We did not know that at the time, but when Australia sent a handful of policemen who were promptly withdrawn when things got nasty, at that point we should have made good our responsiblity, instead the government dithered with a purpose (long enough for the Indonesian military to do its dirty work), and arrived only to tidy up some of the mess left behind (by the way all for the sake of oil as well).
When the violence started at the time of the vote the left should have been vocal of immediate military intervention, but we were not. It was clear then the duplicity of our government, it was absolutely clear that the violence (which had been warned about time and time again) was expected and part of the plan - but the Australian left would not, could not suggest anything as impure as military protection being sent, far better that thousands of East Timorese die and tens of thousands be made virtual prisoners in Indonesia than we sully ourselves saying what needed to be done.
Sorry Yoshie, but I have had it with virginal politics altogether. Unless we are prepared to draw straight lines between conditions as we find them and solutions and weather the consequences we deserve to be on the outer. It becomes a matter of standing up for what is true whether or not we like the truth and would rather have it some other way.
Greg Schofield Perth Australia
--- Message Received --- From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 01:28:01 -0500 Subject: Re: Unjust, Unlawful, & Unproductive Re: Arguments for ground war
Greg says:
>1) Complete US back-off, opening of borders, emergancy agreements
>with the Taliban, the massive shipment of food aid, clothes and
>shelter across the border.
>
>2) the movement of troops across the border bringing aid in its wake.
>
>3) Ignore the problem and let the starve.
>
>Number 1 would be best by far but also the most unlikely. NUmber 3
>is what is happening. So I would say again number 2 has to be
>brought up and brought up in no uncertain terms.
The U.S. government will commit more ground troops and bring more aid, advice, & air support with them. Why should leftists like you argue for what they are going to do in any case?