<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Well, "spotty" is relative, since the NA was better than the mass slaughter committed by the Russians - whose military loss a number of people bemoan on this list.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The point being made is that the lives of the majority of Afghanis could very well be better off after this campaign, especially if the US is induced to provide reconstruction aid as a necessary propaganda device to placate its muslim state allies and various liberal state supporters of the war.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I still think the war was a bad idea, but the swift collapse of the Taliban and, assuming the NA and other groups don't degenerate into inter-group slaughter, the quick assumption of an alternative regime could make the war have far better results than I expected.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In that case, the Left had better have a better argument for why it was a bad idea other than, "because the US is an evil regime and thus anything is does is evil by definition." That's unconvincing to anyone since even the worst regimes do good things if for the wrong reasons.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My basic take - as before - was that arguing against the war is a lost cause and off-point; we need to focus discussion on the "peace", on arguing for full economic reconstruction and addressing human rights and global poverty globally to prevent any repeats in the future.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- Nathan Newman  </FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=dperrin13@mediaone.net href="mailto:dperrin13@mediaone.net">Dennis</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lbo-talk@lists.panix.com href="mailto:lbo-talk@lists.panix.com">lbo-talk@lists.panix.com</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, November 30, 2001 10:51 AM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Again, Hitch</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>Dig this opening:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"The United States of America has just succeeded in bombing a country back out of the Stone Age. This deserves to be recognized as an achievement, even by those who want to hasten past the moment and resume their customary tasks (worrying about the spotty human rights record of the Northern Alliance is the latest thing). The nexus that bound the Taliban to the forces of Al Qaeda and that was symbolized by the clan relationship between Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, has been destroyed. We are rid of one of the foulest regimes on earth, while one of the most vicious crime families in history has been crippled and scattered. It remains to help the Afghan exiles to return, to save the starving and to consolidate the tentative emancipation of Afghan women."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Spotty" human rights record?? Didn't the NA, or whatever it was called back when, collectively slaughter some 50,000 Afghanis? Weren't they so bad that the Taliban were seen by many as liberators, or at least stabilizers? Now, in Hitch's New World Order, the previous statement would be seen as pro-crypto Taliban, which it's not -- I mean, yeah, things will be a little better for the time being, that is, until the next round of tribal violence erupts (which, given the history and the actors, is bound to happen unless the US is committed to sitting on the NA for years to come). Hitch makes it seem that the worst is over, and even bandies about the concept of "emancipation" for Afghan women. Well, we'll see. After all, the NA didn't shoot women in soccer stadiums a la Taliban -- they merely yanked women out of houses and off streets and gang-raped them. Now, I suppose getting raped by several nasty, weapons-toting men is better than having your brains blown out, so that may be a positive step toward the "emancipation" Hitch envisions. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Is it really a surprise that the US military was able to knock off the Taliban? (When Hitch wrote his "Ha Ha" column, I emailed him the comments made by Chomsky in late September, in which the old boy pretty much nailed what would happen. I said to Hitch, "Surely you're not including Noam among the 'pacifists' you're mocking, given his statements." Never heard back, so I suppose I'm off his radar as well.) And will it come as a complete shock if it subdues the Sudan and Iraq? And where to next? Libya? Why not! Gaddafi is no democrat -- off him. Now let's see, how about Cuba? Hitch hates Castro, so I'm sure he'd be pleased to see US bombs dropping on Havana. (Another "vile" regime extinguished.) And given his newfound love of superpower violence and intimidation, I'm sure he had little problem with the US telling the Nicaraguans to <EM>not</EM> elect Ortega, or else. I mean, where does one get off this wicked train, assuming one desires it?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011217&s=hitchens">http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011217&s=hitchens</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>DP</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>