|| -----Original Message-----
|| From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
|| [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Greg Schofield
|| (...)
||
|| Winkling out this oyster always requires exploring the question
|| based on their assuptions and exposing the weakness of the
|| connections between aims and methods - in the end making plain
|| the real motivations and machinations involved.
||
|| In war, any war, part of this requires exploring questions
|| militarily and I would argue this is part of a long tradition
|| within Historical Materialism and as Chris states, ably
|| mastered by Engels, but far from restricted to him. For instance:
||
|| Strategic bombing is very different from tactical bombing
|| (support for ground forces). Both use the same bombs and planes
|| but the targets are very different. The history of strategic
|| bombing started in Spain during the civil war where it was more
|| honestly called Terror Bombing. Technically it has become less
|| arbitary but its purpose remains the same. (...)
|| In short Hakki, war must always be criticised first and
|| foremost in terms of itself because this is the only way of
|| knowing what it is beyond the glib statements of journalists
|| and politicians.
||
|| Greg Schofield
|| Perth Australia
||
Greg buddy, do I strike you as a total idiot? I wish you'd saved yourself and everybody else 1228 words by just giving my 2 simple propositions a moment of thought:
1. We are not qualified to propose military tactics. Nobody has graduated from a military academy, nobody has commanded so much as a platoon in war. We don't know zip. And even those who think they do have fallen flat on their faces in Afghanistan.
2. If we were to somehow prevail over the Pentagon to implement a given tactic, we would then be responsible for its consequences in bloodshed and devastation. Is that something you would enjoy? Do you think that it would be more likely to advance our cause, whatever that may be, or make us into cold-blooded manipulators, opportunists, accessories to war crimes, etc.?
When did I ever defend something as preposterous as not criticising the war's tactics? I have never ceased to condemn the specific military *methods* used, as well as the war's imperialist *aims*. Chris isn't talking about criticism, he's saying that we should actually bloody _propose alternative military tactics_, and bloody _fantasizing_ about them as well (non-heat-emitting Afghan guerillas luring the US into a Dienbienphu, etc.). How can you even consider discussing that shit?
What drug-fried brain produces vaudeville-machiavellian wanking like this?
>The bombing may be forced to focus on front line Taliban troops, with the
>claim that the regime is failing to hand highly suspect terrorists over
>for investigation. But then the argument should move on to ask why can
>there not be negotiations to move them to a neutral territory. [Or better
>still back to Saudi Arabia to be tried under islamic law by a regime that
>the US would have to respect as it would not want oil supplies cut off?]
>
>This tactical argument could arguably leave the door open for a parachute
>drop of armed forces to seize and defend certain communication routes,
>which would impair the ease of some Taliban communications, and arguably
>help diplomatic skirmishing about a successor government. The risk would
>be that such a position could be surrounded by Taliban troops carefully
>emitting no heat sources in the depth of the Afghan winter, who would
>recreate, but in mountainous terrain, the historic fall of imperial armed
>power at Dien Bien Phu.
You think you can play war like fantasy bloody football, Chris?
Hakki