I don't think I agree with this, but it seems to me more in touch with reality than some of the "sensible" positions being bruited about on this list. By "sensible" I mean any program that presupposes any degree of good faith by the U.S. in carrying it out, and that covers all proposals for leftist action beyond saying No as loudly as possible.
Carrol
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [R-G] Fw: [L-I] Re: WWIII: 'Between Oct. 8 and
mid-November'
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:26:43 +0100
From: Mark Jones <jones118 at lineone.net>
Reply-To: rad-green at lists.econ.utah.edu
>
> > Hey Mark: How do you reconcile these kinds of posts with your no war
thesis?
My consistent approach starting with my first post on this topic, sent about 2 days after 9/11, was that people hoping for swift retrubution, 'nuking 'em', etc, should not hold their breath. And so it has proved: in the first days the US elites were full of warmongering frenzy, to the point where people like that boss-eyed, bat-eared Berengaria of the Buchanan right, Ann Coulter, were seriously talking about a Crusade conducted in terms that Richard the Lionheart 1157-1199) would have instantly understood: 'Kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity' babbled the overheated far-right guruette, writing, appropriately, in the Jewish World Review.
But cooler heads have prevailed. Oy vey, only a decade since MAD (mutually assured destruction) passed into history along withe th cold war, and already they've forgotten the obvious truth which Hitler also forget in is day: there is no guarantee they won't do the same thing to you, and worse, as soon as they get the chance.
Fortunately for all of us they remembered in time, so there the Taleban still is and here we still all are. The idea of a swift war of revenge, happening with regard only for US public opinion (as if they give a shbit about that manufactured, atrificial commodity), ignoring all the mid-east fundamentals, ignoring the fact that even more terribly retribution up to and including the use of things like suitcase nukes is still available to the enemy (whoever they are): this idea was never very plausible. Our rulers aren't *that* dumb. In fact, what they all want above all is to get back to business as usual as quickly as possible. However, this must also now include *no repetitions of 9/11* and that is what the game is all about. No repetitions may or may not mean bombing Kabul, "getting bin Laden's head on a plate" etc, but it definitely does involve dealing with the underlying causes, the social ills and historical grievances, which makes such things happen in the first place. So nw a huge shuttle diplomacy is going on, a huge process of negotiation and mediation, under the conveneint banner of 'coalition-building', 'war on terror', etc, and everyone is putting their damnds on the table, from Putin to the Chechens, from Pakistan to the Palestinians, from Turkey to Egypt and from Paris and London to New York and Walls Street. The big losers (as was also obvious from the start) will be the Israelis. The big gainers will be the Palestinians and the Arab cause generally. This fact is so obvious that this more than anything makes 9/11 a strategic disaster for the rulers of the world: the Big Swinging Dicks, finance and corporate capital, and the interlocking circles of power elites in Washington, London, Frankfurt and Berlin. Because it provides an obvious example and a clear envouragement to imitators. Something like this should never have been let happen, and the persons most directly responsible are the unelected, irresponsible Bushies themselves, they and their corporate backers. Now they have been shown the limits of power in a brutally direct way and they also will have to change, to learn to listen more, and to do something about grievances. Everyone from trade unionists to keyensian economists looking for work and research grants, are gonna benefit. Absolutely none of these people want a general war, and nor do insurance corps, airlines, or anyone with an interest in equity or bond markets. So why would there be a general war? Of course, there probably won't be--yet. Since there has been no repetition of 9/11 it is surely obviosu that the perpetrators themselves are also part of the graeat non-zero sum game of optimising social advantages. All they ever wanted was to be heard, but no-one listened. They asked politely, many times, but were ignored. Finally, they put a brick thru the window, and boy, are people listening now.
Of course, this, as I say, only means that war *probably* will not happen *yet*.
Mark _______________________________________________ Rad-Green mailing list Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green