> The U.S. government have & will commit terrors, train terrorists, &
> support terrorist networks when they are useful to it. The present war
> -- whose main casualties will be civilians in Afghanistan, U.N. workers
> clearing land-mines, Red-Cross workers, etc. -- is being waged to manage
> the fallouts of neoliberal capitalism (e.g., failed or failing states on
> the periphery) through the expansion of Empire, restore confidence in
> U.S. military might (shaken by the successful bombing of the Pentagon), etc.
I think this is a fuller statement. I would not agree with Yoshie's earlier statement
>Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:16:13 -0400
>....
>They aren't fighting terrorism, though. The "war on terrorism" is just a
>rhetoric, like the "war on drugs."
I would also not agree with an earlier formulation that the US ruling class is using the war to consolidate its class position. (sorry not a direct quote)
These statements are partly true but it is necessary to analyse at a subjective and an objective level.
I do not think it is possible to refute that the US was seriously shocked by the attack on the WTC. (It was meant to be shocked.) The "war against terrorism" is a subjective response giving vent to the anger in the grief. In structural terms it is an attempt to reassert a global power structure in which for the last 10 years the US has been the unrivalled hegemon. However it is in a context in which international communications are even more fluid. These terrorists really have no country, and the accompanying media war is one in which a station funded by Qatari and other gulf national capital is providing an alternative arena for struggle.
That is why Yoshie is right to refer to the expansion of Empire. In the course of this struggle the US will have to shift from reinforcing its position as hegemon, to being the main component in a global Empire, in which it has to share power and accountability with different imperialist and capitalist forces.
This is a struggle about the legitimacy of global power structures, which the US will partly lose.
It is essential to reactivate the global campaigns against international capital as well, realising that correctly pitched, this is an aspect of struggle in which the US would have to concede further political territory.
Yes I like a whole number of tactical points that Lou Paulsen made. About flags the sort of thing the alternative movement should do is to place the symbol prominently in the context of a whole number of other flags, and the flag of the United Nations. Say the flags of the United Nations Security Council, plus the UN flag. That would also have the merit of keeping the sectarians away from the demonstrations. It would also resonate with people's need for peace, security and justice, and the fact that the US cannot win this on its own.
Chris Burford
London