-Ah-ah-AH, Nathan. That's a bit of a cheap shot, isn't it? Thrusting the -onus for this sort of explanation onto the shoulders of . . . who? The WWP?
Actually I was pushing on the easy libertarian "anti-government" consensus that sees military action as horrible, but far more deaths due to the operation of the infrastructure of capitalism as "non-intentional."
And my problem with the antiwar left like the WWP is that they spend all their time demonizing government action, thereby feeding the idea that the best we can hope for is getting the government "out of everywhere." Very libertarian sentiment. Let's have a night guardman state and let's let the market have contracts and free exchange decide who lives and dies.
Let me be straight-- I don't think the Iraq war or even US military wars in general are even close to the most important issue in the world.
Those military actions could well have important effects on the issues that are important-- the structure of global capitalism, the Holocaust of AIDS deaths we are facing, the degredation of workers rights, etc. -- but so will many other non-military actions by the US government.
But the deaths from war, just as the danger from terrorism, are far overrated and actually hysterical. Global attention focused on Indonesia because of 150 deaths from terrorism. But each year, 336,000 children under 5 die, 60% due to malnutrition, in Indonesia. Even fears of nuclear terrorism pale in comparison to the nuclear bombs of death by starvation and disease that level the poor of developing countries each year.
--- Nathan Newman