>From: "Max Sawicky" <sawicky at bellatlantic.net>
>The purpose of the ESD position is not to curry favor with
>the public in order to foist other ideas upon it. It is to
>acknowledge what the RAI's don't want to talk about -- that
>some resort to self-defense is what I would call an absolute right.
CR: Absolutely. But I don't see how pulverizing Kabul comes under the heading of self-defense, strictly speaking. Heightened domestic airport security and more US border checks are what I'd define as self-defense.
mbs: As I tried to make clear, this is a different argument. Once you grant a right of self-defense, you are cast out of the RAI camp with the mark of Cain on your ass -- trying to be true to the moment. You want to talk tactics, fine. I would agree that indiscriminate bombing is more hurtful than otherwise. It economizes on American lives at the expense of Afghan lives. Alternatively, forward U.S. bases for attacking the Taliban and al-qaida forces is more true to the ostensible U.S. mission. But I'm no military tactician so I wouldn't want to go too far out on a limb.
>While I've said I thought that no such force can be absoutely
>effective, there should also be little doubt that it will
>blunt the extent of terrorist attacks.
CR: Why are you so sure? As has been argued, our use of military force may simply create martyrs and recruit more terrorists -- Israel being Exhibit A.
mbs: you cut out the part where I said I wasn't 'so sure,' citing Israel. I am sure that turning the other cheek is worse, from the simple standpoint of deterring further attacks.
>The RAI's posture excludes them from any real political
>debate about longer-term remedies.
CR: Jeez, is there a penalty box here? How long do you have to wait to get back in the game?
mbs: There is willful self-marginalization. Once you kick that habit, you can get off the bench. A good start would be to read Ruy Teixeira's latest in TAP.