<!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></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A few thoughts on weaponry and
struggle...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Galbraith is known best for his economic
views, but his World War II studies that highlighted the ineffectiveness of
strategic bombing became as much the "common sense" left over from his work as
any other of his economic writing. Vietnam just served to reinforce the
lesson, seemingly for all time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But in the wake of the Gulf War, Kosovo and
Afghanistan, that common sense has to be unlearned - probably not completely but
in large areas of our collective unconscious thinking. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Modern weaponry backed by the money for
sophisticated technology is a devastating weapon of war, allowing a great power
like the US to conquer physical space without risking the death of hardly any of
its own people in war, especially when it can use proxies to "mop up" after the
bombing has done its work. That such bombing can be done in ways that
significantly reduce opposition casualties just reinforces the political
legitimacy for use of such weaponry.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What flows from this is unclear in every instance,
but an antiwar movement built around "body bag" numbers - either ours
or "theirs" - will fall largely flat. It also makes the romance of
military-based antiimperial war a nostalgic item of mid-20th century history,
not a likely viable option for the next century. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"Progressive nationalism" is pretty much history,
since viable nationalism outside large power interests will likely not survive
outside the shelter of such weaponry. A return to large power conflict may
open up global political space for small acts of independence, but only so long
as they don't threaten large power interests. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now, this basic rule of the power of air bombing
only goes so far, since a state with a less reprehensible government than the
Taliban would not fall so fast since there would be fewer proxies available to
assume power easily on the ground. The US otherwise would have had to do
its own work on the ground with greater cost and politically holding such a
state might be nonviable over the longer term. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But that is the longer term issue of political
control that festers in war and peace-- the issue is what to make of the clear
change in the nature of the power of air bombing in the modern era. On
that issue, the game seems to have changed quite radically during the last
decade.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- Nathan Newman</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>