The basis for my statements has been to increase our effect by becoming much more realistic about what we are saying.
We are systematically ignoring the most obvious contradictioon and this fits in well with Bush and his ilk. I doubt that there will be any serious ground war, I know that these people are to starve, but they are not dead yet and so I am impelled to talk on the basis of what should be done now of which we have precious little in terms of alternatives.
Total withdrawal combined with negotiation with the Afghan governement (the best but least likely), a ground war (within the realms of possiblity but not after all that likely), doing nothing and letting them starve (what will probably happen).
Why on earth can't we propose the two options that offer some hope ie if you cannot withdraw then invade. Why is saying this, which is simply a matter of the real situation such a problem?
Now what can we do in the short run, well here fanatsy does play its part. If we had been more mature, if we had reached some accord with factual reality, then even in the marginal spaces we do get we could offer the discordant note and thus start revealing the actual contradictions.
Only the ultra-right mentions ground war, but backs away from the consequences. Liberal opinion and conservative may differ from the left about the necessity of the war, but the left shares with them a horror of actually contemplating alternatives. The public is faced with war as it is (safe to them, horrible to the people of Afganistan and very sanitsied), or an isolated left position of opposition to an unfolding reality. Bringing up the ground war brings up all the questions which they want shut out - it is a practical measure to place the left into the middle of debate.
But the left is not going to change its spots - so my little bit has nothing to do with trying to create a public forum, but within this enclosed little forum of the left, to get the left to start thinking about its politics and hopefully changing its passive and virginal ways.
Is such a modest ambition, playing games? I think it is not. Could I have brought it up in a better way? Most probably I should have. However, it has got some people thinking and so has not been a complete waste of time. Am I serious - well yes. The fantasy was treating the left as a mature political force - which of course we are not.
In the future I hope that we begin treating serious international and national questions realistically, pose achievable objectives and deal squarely with the consquences. We will not still be virgins but we would be a lot more effective.
Under other conditions, bringing up a ground war would place the left at the centre of debate, it would have exposed the charlatans that rule and perhaps made peace a more practical option embraced by people consciously as a direction they wish to take. I still say, if you wish to connvince someone today that peace is a better option, just run through why a ground war is needed at this instance - it does not take much imagination for drawing out the consequences - by the way it has worked on all the local hawks I have spoken to of late, and they actually have listened to me.
PS Carrol, sorry if the manner seems a bit gruff, but there is more here then simply playing about. We are enclosed on all sides by utopian visions, break through sometimes requires saying the very things that will provoke antipathy - but such is life ; )
Greg Schofield Perth Australia
--- Message Received --- From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 01:02:40 -0600 Subject: Re: Unjust, Unlawful, & Unproductive Re: Arguments for ground war
Greg Schofield wrote:
>
> Yoshie, in the abstract all your arguments are justified and good, but the Afghans are not living in the abstract - this winter means death, it is that which is the primary concern of internationalism.
>
> >
> Yoshie, as I said your arguments are sound in the abstract. But the point is not talking abstractly, we should say all that you have said but we need to add to it temporal reality.
>
Greg, you are engaging in fantasy if you think the left can have any impact on the US policy in Afghanistan over the next few months. Whatever is going to happen this winter is already decided. This private fantasy you are spinning amounts to a rather cruel hoax.
Whatever the left does, we can't lie to people. Ane it is a rather crude lie to claim the left can make a difference in the short run.
Stop playing games and turn your attention to the actual question: What can leftists do now that will make a difference next year?
Carrol
P.S. For necessary qualifications of the argument stated here, see the following post:
Subject: Building the movement, and Carrol's "Impotence Thesis" Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 07:17:58 -0500 From: Lou Paulsen <wwchi at enteract.com>