But Nathan, the "war," as Bush, Rumsfeld, et al have made clear, is not confined to Afghanistan. Irq's next, then who knows. So yeas, we have to oppose "the war"--the "war on terrorism," of which the assault on Afghanistan was jsut the opening shot. Unless you think they;ve lost their taste for blood and cheap victory, fat fucking chance. No wider war! jks
>
>Well, "spotty" is relative, since the NA was better than the mass slaughter
>committed by the Russians - whose military loss a number of people bemoan
>on this list.
>
>The point being made is that the lives of the majority of Afghanis could
>very well be better off after this campaign, especially if the US is
>induced to provide reconstruction aid as a necessary propaganda device to
>placate its muslim state allies and various liberal state supporters of the
>war.
>
>I still think the war was a bad idea, but the swift collapse of the Taliban
>and, assuming the NA and other groups don't degenerate into inter-group
>slaughter, the quick assumption of an alternative regime could make the war
>have far better results than I expected.
>
>In that case, the Left had better have a better argument for why it was a
>bad idea other than, "because the US is an evil regime and thus anything is
>does is evil by definition." That's unconvincing to anyone since even the
>worst regimes do good things if for the wrong reasons.
>
>My basic take - as before - was that arguing against the war is a lost
>cause and off-point; we need to focus discussion on the "peace", on arguing
>for full economic reconstruction and addressing human rights and global
>poverty globally to prevent any repeats in the future.
>
>-- Nathan Newman
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dennis
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:51 AM
> Subject: Again, Hitch
>
>
> Dig this opening:
>
> "The United States of America has just succeeded in bombing a country
>back out of the Stone Age. This deserves to be recognized as an
>achievement, even by those who want to hasten past the moment and resume
>their customary tasks (worrying about the spotty human rights record of the
>Northern Alliance is the latest thing). The nexus that bound the Taliban to
>the forces of Al Qaeda and that was symbolized by the clan relationship
>between Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, has been destroyed. We are rid of
>one of the foulest regimes on earth, while one of the most vicious crime
>families in history has been crippled and scattered. It remains to help the
>Afghan exiles to return, to save the starving and to consolidate the
>tentative emancipation of Afghan women."
>
> "Spotty" human rights record?? Didn't the NA, or whatever it was called
>back when, collectively slaughter some 50,000 Afghanis? Weren't they so bad
>that the Taliban were seen by many as liberators, or at least stabilizers?
>Now, in Hitch's New World Order, the previous statement would be seen as
>pro-crypto Taliban, which it's not -- I mean, yeah, things will be a little
>better for the time being, that is, until the next round of tribal violence
>erupts (which, given the history and the actors, is bound to happen unless
>the US is committed to sitting on the NA for years to come). Hitch makes it
>seem that the worst is over, and even bandies about the concept of
>"emancipation" for Afghan women. Well, we'll see. After all, the NA didn't
>shoot women in soccer stadiums a la Taliban -- they merely yanked women out
>of houses and off streets and gang-raped them. Now, I suppose getting raped
>by several nasty, weapons-toting men is better than having your brains
>blown out, so that may be a positive step toward the "emancipation" Hitch
>envisions.
>
> Is it really a surprise that the US military was able to knock off the
>Taliban? (When Hitch wrote his "Ha Ha" column, I emailed him the comments
>made by Chomsky in late September, in which the old boy pretty much nailed
>what would happen. I said to Hitch, "Surely you're not including Noam among
>the 'pacifists' you're mocking, given his statements." Never heard back, so
>I suppose I'm off his radar as well.) And will it come as a complete shock
>if it subdues the Sudan and Iraq? And where to next? Libya? Why not!
>Gaddafi is no democrat -- off him. Now let's see, how about Cuba? Hitch
>hates Castro, so I'm sure he'd be pleased to see US bombs dropping on
>Havana. (Another "vile" regime extinguished.) And given his newfound love
>of superpower violence and intimidation, I'm sure he had little problem
>with the US telling the Nicaraguans to not elect Ortega, or else. I mean,
>where does one get off this wicked train, assuming one desires it?
>
> http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011217&s=hitchens
>
> DP
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp