We need to accept the reality of the strength of feeling but analyse which parts of it with which to ally, and which significant voices to amplify.
Part of the reaction is shock and mourning. Once the anger has been acknowledged as not at all surprising (this was a terroristic attack after all, and designed to provoke) then it is easier to unite with the sadness and the sense of vulnerability. Mourning ceremonies can unite people in a sense of the fragility of life, as well as being used to bolster narrow minded tribal attitudes separating your group from the evil enemy.
But Greg goes on to put an ironic and perhaps even a sarcastic argument. It think there is more than a germ of truth in it. It resonates with the revulsion millions of people felt about the Kosovo war although some at least felt that the bully with bombs from 30,000 feet might just possibly rescue a million refugees.
Now that argument for a "just war" goes strongly against any continuation of the present initiative.
Greg's argument essentially could unite with those who think that terrorism like the attack on the WTC should not go unpunished, but that if world powers claim to be doing that, it should be much more like a police action, than a war. Otherwise more innocent civilians are likely to be killed by the racing police cars.
What to do now? Senior British military figures are actively leaking, no publically discussing, the limitations of a ground war. Leftists can focus their arguments that yes armed police action escorted by armed troops could well be necessary for apprehending terrorists, but it must be proportionate and not foolhardy.
If the Empire confirms its intention to intervene militarily. every photograph of the death of a civilians is legitimate criticism, and a powerful argument that from its own point of view this is counterproductive. [I am very much favour not just using humanitarian arguments, as this may appear narrowly pacifist and sectarian and separate leftists from the rest of the population, who suddenly say what about my cousin!] The best arguments are ones that "we" (as a globe, a multitude) are against tragic and unnecessary loss of life, but that we expect those who step forward as champions of Imperial Peace, to accept the responsibility to try to enforce peace rationally.
Yes, I agree with Greg, the left should challenge the hegemons that if an armed job has to be done, employees of those hegemons should be placing themselves at risk, rather than leaving all the risks to be borne by the victims of high level bombing.
I think it is clear that the debate within global civil society is in any case proceeding powerfully in this direction.
But to the extent that readers of this list have any conscious influence, however small, on what to amplify and what to inhibit in the area of public discourse to which we have access, then, what are the consequences of this tactical adjustment?
We cannot predict exactly what Blair and Bush, and perhaps more signficantly their advisers are likely to argue about, but this tactical and strategic approach is likely to further inhibit the hegemon's scope for rash high level bombing.
The bombing may be forced to focus on front line Taliban troops, with the claim that the regime is failing to hand highly suspect terrorists over for investigation. But then the argument should move on to ask why can there not be negotiations to move them to a neutral territory. [Or better still back to Saudi Arabia to be tried under islamic law by a regime that the US would have to respect as it would not want oil supplies cut off?]
This tactical argument could arguably leave the door open for a parachute drop of armed forces to seize and defend certain communication routes, which would impair the ease of some Taliban communications, and arguably help diplomatic skirmishing about a successor government. The risk would be that such a position could be surrounded by Taliban troops carefully emitting no heat sources in the depth of the Afghan winter, who would recreate, but in mountainous terrain, the historic fall of imperial armed power at Dien Bien Phu.
But let them discuss it. I agree with the positive essence of Greg's challenging post that if armed police action is to be taken, then the imperial authorities should ethically be prepared to put the lives of their own people at risk, if that is a rational way of minimising risk to the people of the world.
Otherwise it will be safer for the average citizen of the US, UK or Australia to hand the whole operation over to the United Nations, and delegate full powers to levy finances directly from the people of the world, for peace making forces.
And when the US has its back against the wall, that is a much more powerful argument than would have appeared one year ago.
Yes, if the war is just, let it be a ground war immediately!
Chris Burford London
At 01/11/01 13:02 +0800, Greg wrote:
>Actually I think "ordinary people" is by far the better description, those
>that lack power and wealth. The "general public" is much more abstract and
>contains those that have a great deal of power.
>
>Naunces of expression have some importance but not a lot especially as
>each is subject to a good deal of cultural history and differing emphasis.
>
>As for calming the war-like drive that the people of the US have been
>whipped into - I fear it is already too late, too late that is to save
>those that will die of stavation as winter comes. The death toll by bombs
>may well soon exceed that of S11, but of stavation will make minor and
>unimportant in the catastrophe that is about to unfold.
>
>At the moment I am all for America making ground assualts, the sooner the
>better!
>
>Perhaps when there is a black stream of bodybags arriving in the US the
>need for something better will dawn on the great mass of people. Good
>council has been abundant since this stupidity began, not only has it been
>ignored but it has been censored out of existence. Perhaps, ironically,
>the best solution is to allow it to go ahead full-steam - let the US, no
>encourage it by every means, to give up on the ineffective air-war and get
>its hands dirty on the ground. Afghanistan has a long history of burying
>armies, my hope is that there is room to bury one more.
>
>A bloody US defeat, may well clear the boards for a much more sensible
>approach to international matters, Afghanistan is one of the few places on
>earth which by history and geography is well situated to expound such a
>lesson. And as I said, unless some miracle is done, the real harm has
>already been achieved and thousands upon thousands of innocents are as
>good as condemned to death already.
>
>The irony is that this should happen not at the apex of US imperialism but
>when it is already a dead duck - I doubt that peace, even if it arrived
>tomorrow would save many of those most at risk, so I now go to the other
>extreme, tally-ho America and meet your second Battle of the Little Big
>Horn and your final Dien Bien Phu.
>
>Greg Schofield
>Perth Australia
>
>
>--- Message Received ---
>From: "Carl Remick" <carlremick at hotmail.com>
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 04:15:19
>Subject: Re: Change the thread title!
<>
>Yes, there are more pressing issues than whether we're on the same
>wavelength, Chris, and I don't want to harp on this point or seem pedantic.
>However, I think that casual use of a phrase like "ordinary people" when
>referring to the general public serves to objectify others and put them at a
>distance. I believe this aura of clinical detachment taints leftist public
>pronouncements too often and is one reason why at least 80% of the public,
>as you note, pay no attention to politics and economics, seeing them as
>remote from their lives and concerns. IMO, the left has to do a better job
>heeding public sensibilities and -- preferably without waving flags --
>affirming solidarity with the community at large. In short, it has to
>convincingly get down with the folks it putatively represents.
>
>I would stress one key distinction: heeding public sensibilities and being
>responsive to them does not mean the same thing as pandering to the public's
>worst, most shortsighted instincts. The latter, I fear, is exactly what is
>done by leftists who counsel political "realism" and think the left should
>do nothing to try to cool the U.S. public's war fever.
>
>Carl
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp