Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > I think this will be my last repetition for a while of what has become
> > my central point.
> >
> > The security of many will NOT, repeat NOT, be secured by the lives of
> > another many. It will be a straight-out human sacrifice for no practical
> > results. There will be no increased safety.
> >
>
> Hate to sound like the social scientist here, but isn't this an
> empirical question?
>
> Miles
Yes -- that is how it can be confirmed or negated. There is a political principle behind it: if I'm wrong no one (except people on this list who are bugged by me) will remember it. If I'm right, it's an agitational point of some use.
Of course the real way to stick one's neck out (on the same principle) is to predict that u.s. troops will be engaged in widespread and continuous war over a huge arc of nations across Africa and South Asia.
One complicating factor is a point John Adams made about the England of his day which may apply to Washington: Never, he said, trust the English to act in their own interest. Some predictions I've seen are based on estimating what the "real" u.s. ruling class interest is and assuming that Washington will pursue that interest.
:-)
Carrol