Your question 1: "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."
In essence all miltary questions are about the nature of contending forces. We have a long history of warfare and it is not too difficult to grasp its essentials. Does this make us adequate field commanders, or even staff officers - hardly, that is a world of minutae and requires a large knowledge of many things. However, the general picture of a war, its main startegic objectives and methods is not beyond any one who applies themselves.
In short the expertise of a field officer is not required. Moreover it is always a political question and I hope we believe that most of us have some expertise at this level of analysis, thus adding a military dimension is not such a big extension.
Your Second question: "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.?"
I don't think Chris has suggested anything other than being a commentator, the Pentagon will make up its mind as is its want. Our perspective is to reveal the contradictions at the many levels they occur. Even raising a strident voice for a particular move to be adopted is no more than this.
The framework for us is always that there was an alternative, less contradictory and more progressive response to S11 and that this has not been taken. Which brings me back to the point I raised and our response to it:
"In any conflict whether it be political or military, a great many of the participants and supporters will only see things one sidedly, only consider the rhetoric and announced aims. They are by definitioin not open to simple opposition, they have already made up their minds that their side is doing something important, so important that they will often supress their own misgivings and all forms of criticism."
By begining on their assumptions will should always attempt to reveal what they would rather not acknowledge.
Greg Schofield Perth Australia
--- Message Received --- From: "Hakki Alacakaptan" <nucleus at superonline.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:19:35 +0200 Subject: RE: Arguments for ground war - forget it
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