Jacob Segal wrote:
>
> on 10/18/01 7:12 AM, Doug Henwood at dhenwood at panix.com wrote:
>
> > Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >
> >> The current attack on Afghanistan is not unilateral but
> >> multilateral: the USA, the UK, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Japan, etc.
> >> What, then, is your reason not to support it?
> >
> > Because it's indiscriminate and brutal. Massive bombing isn't what I
> > had in mind. And the weaponry is almost all American.
> >
> > Doug
>
> Question for Doug.
>
> Can you really have a tightly focused campaign? Wouldn't the military
> insist on a broader bombing campaign to minimze risks to US troops?
>
> Don't ask me what I would do since I have no idea.
>
> Jacob Segal
My argument is that _no one_ has (or will have) any idea of any acceptable response to the WTC attacks (and any further attacks down the road). Any response (however carefully phrased by "practical" left intellectuls) will have to be (a) accepted by the Bush administration and its backers and (b) _carried out_ by that administration. But even as mighty a movement power as the November 1969 Moratorium had _only_ a negative effect -- that is, it persuaded Nixon _not_ to drop The Bomb. (See earlier posts on this from Justin. The war dragged on, with the horrendous Christmas bombing of Hanoi and other continuing atrocities. It was only the collapse of the U.S. army (described in official publications) that actually forced withdrawal.
In one way, I might mention, this bothers me very much, because in U.S. leftist history individualist responses have been almost endemic (and terrorism of various levels is generically an individualist response to political frustration). Chuck0's recent posts reflect that tendency. For a terrorist strategy to succeed, therefore, would provide a very unwelcome model for u.s. left politics. To really feel this you have to have experienced the ways in which Weathermen and Weathermen types blithely tried to apply tactics which by no stretch of the imagination were even remotely applicable in the United States. One such type seriously told me that his group were applying Giap's concentration and expansion strategy to their pisspot window-smashing adventures in Bloomington-Normal. I and others had put forth the slogan "Raise the political cost of the war." This group interpreted that as causing State Farm the cost of replacing smashed windows!
Also, given the utter irresponsibility and ruthlessness, along with the great power, of the U.S. ruling class, how will that class respond to a really serious defeat -- such as having to withdraw from the Mideast?
I am moving toward the position that our (leftists's) actions now should be primarily focused on preparing to deal with a ruling class gone mad from defeat.
Anarchism is the price the working class pays for its sins of opportunism. (Lenin)
Carrol