----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
-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
Maybe, but to the extent that we treat going after Iraq as qualitatively the same war as Afghanistan, we are essentially replicating the ideology of the neoconservatives in reverse. To argue "no wider war" is to essentially link them, which is insane poltical rhetoric given support for the Afghanistan intervention. We don't want to reinforce the idea that those who supported Afghanistan should inevitably support Iraq.
There is a LARGE body of people whose support for intervention in Afghanistan will not extend to a war on Iraq opposed by the rest of the Muslim countries and many of our European allies.
One reason to discuss the peace is to hasten the idea that the war is over. We want to encourage as many people as possible to "declare victory and go home." And the best way to do that is to promote what a just victory would look like.
-- Nathan Newman