Nor do I. I am trying to contrast what I see as an idealist response to political events as to whether we personally think they are legitimate or not and whether they offend what all good leftists should think - and a materialist analysis, which I think is the true marxist [small letters] approach, which sees the clash of material forces as it actually unfolds. What Brad rightly rejects is preaching, and offensive preaching at that.
But if Hakki wants to pose the question in terms of whether the war is legitimate, of course it was not legitimate, but it was going to happen in some form or other. Better that it happened in a less violent and destructive way than a more destructive and violent way. And a way hopefully, and this is what is important now, opens the door to more progressive world politics.
BTW I agree with another of Carrol's pithy remarks in this context- that the Left does not exist. I as reacting to what I saw as the implication behind Hakki's statement that the Left does exist, and it has clear standards about what is legitimate of not - certainly as far as the attack on the Taliban regime is concerned. I do not believe this to be the case. But perhaps as Greg constructively suggests, we have been talking past each other.
Chris Burford