My point is not to welcome the display of U.S. military force in action, but to say that realistically no other action could be expected, and there is a possibility that it could work. This implies a certain political universe, whereas the inevitable debacle position implies another. The latter, incidentally, I do not think has been much probed by the Country Joe & the Fish peace movement. A government delegitimized by terrorist victory does not necessarily serve up a population ripe for progressive consciousness. People who feel beaten, victimized, and scared don't necessarily look to the left.
Actually I would up the ante if given some odds and a credible betting partner.
The Bush Administration is way too invested in ambitious goals to go wobbly now. If it does, it will destroy itself and open the way to more agressive postures from both centrist Dems and McCain types. It will be driven to use more force before it uses less. If along the way there are further attacks, this just exacerbates the pressures.
This is a long way from over. Too much blood has been spilled. Blowing up anonymous, innocent Afghan civilians doesn't solve the Administration's political problem, much less the terrorist threat. The U.S. could declare victory and withdraw in Vietnam because the Vietnamese had no interest in following us to the U.S. The U.S. cannot concede its assets in the ME, so it cannot run away from al qaida.
If the "Empire" was so weak it would have collapsed a long time ago.
mbs
Considering the latest noise out of Washington, where Rumsfeld is talking about the US-Afghan War (now _that_ is music to my ears) lasting "years", Max Sawicky had better either concede his bet, or recalibrate it.
- Brad Mayer