It just isn't true that violence never solves anything. Violence solves all sorts of problems, though seldom the ones the left is concerned about. Nor is it true that violence only begets violence. Well-applied violence begets security. Unfortunately human history always throws up new violence.
One virtue of DMcR's essay is to distinguish between moral witness and efforts at practical politics. Both have value but they should not be confused with each other. The peace movement seems to think moral witness IS politics. Would that it were so.
You can't impose legal institutions on a country and situation profoundly inimical to them. It might be morally preferable, but it isn't practical. Nor is it reasonable to insist on legal procedures and formal proofs of guilt in a situation of war. Does this create the opportunity for official mischief? Hell yes.
Unfortunately, this means there is no choice but to accept the Administration's policy for now. It is not a matter of 'trust,' but of determining the likely motivations of that policy. At present, the obvious motivation is to prevent further attacks. A few more of these and the bonhomie surrounding the Administration could evaporate quickly. On NPR this a.m., Kevin Phillips noted a similar pattern in previous wars, including those with better justifications or more explicit goals. So I would conclude that the Administration would like to find actual terrorists and liquidate them. What they are doing now is a plausible start to that project. Obviously it will not be surgical. There is no incentive on that front either.
Invasions of other countries that can be explained by ambitions beyond ending terrorist threats to the U.S. would be easy to observe and object to when such time arrives. In this and in the matter of domestic chauvinism and civil liberties, there is a risk of jumping the gun. I would say that developments in none of these areas has reached the critical mass to justify their emphasis, so far. Failure to realize this amounts to crying wolf and reduces credibility later, when it will be needed more.
It is worth circulating the Chomsky critique of U.S. foreign policy, as long as it is not done in a way that diminishes the culpability of terrorists for what was done on 911. People seem to have trouble doing this. It's bad enough to demand the Gov do nothing, worse to lend any moral credence to murderers. More javelin catching.
In a sense the peace movement is replaying the Vietnam war, when moral witness had a reasonable political footing. The ostensible enemy at that time had a case, and it wasn't blowing up buildings in Manhattan. Equating the Vietnamese with OBL or Wahabi clerical fascists (either "ours" or OBL) is quite a disservice to analysis. But one would be at a loss to say how the line of today's peace movement differs from that of 1965-75. The present line is more like the revolutionary defeatism of WWII. It doesn't stack up to the Bolsheviks in WWI, since the enemy then had a few good points, relative to the Czar. No resemblance to the present situation.
I don't think I am more paranoid than the average person, but the week after 911 I tried (unsuccessfully, and w/o much effort) to buy a gas mask. When I hear sirens from my office (frequent), I wonder if something else has happened. When my daughter sneezes, I wonder if the plague has begun. I knew people (not close friends) who died on 911. I have close friends who came very close to getting killed.
Any presumption that this sort of apprehension in the public can be discounted for the sake of a radical critique of capitalism is simply nuts. Peace politics right now are nutty. The only thing that will save it is if or when the Administration does something even more nutty. It's probably our only hope.
What to do? I would say, talk about causes, but w/o lending terrorism any moral standing. Relate causes to U.S. elites, but don't tolerate conspiracist tales. (Unseriousness in a crisis is particularly offensive.) Note the 'blowback' potential in the alliances that are being made and remade now (i.e., Uzbekistan; Pakistan; the Northern Alliance; Saudi Arabia; etc.). Don't cry wolf before a solid case can be made. Right now, for instance, the last thing one could accuse the Administration of, unlike some of its right-wing supporters, is fomenting chauvinism. And oppose war aims that go outside the scope of preventing further attacks on the U.S.
mbs
David McReynolds writes...
These are preliminary notes and I certainly welcome responses. It is a
>draft of an article for the Nonviolent Activist of WRL. . . .