In my adult life I've supported two (2) acts of state violence. The first, Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia on December 25, 1978; the second, the US overthrow of the Taliban dictatorship. Both countries responded to attacks by outside forces within their borders. Both countries displaced murderous, backward regimes. Both countries killed thousands of civilians in their efforts (in fact, Vietnam killed tens of thousands of Cambodian civilians). Both countries placed "friendly" figures in power.
There are many criticisms one can make of both invasions, and I've stated some in regards to Afghanistan here. But on balance I believe that given the choice between inaction and engagement, the latter choice in these two cases was the proper one to make, however ugly the execution.
Now, I've seen apologies for Soviet and Chinese state violence on this list, yet for some reason this never translates into the kind of name calling and vilification I've encountered over Afghanistan. So it seems to me that "state violence" isn't really the issue -- ideology is (save for those who are either pacifist or purist). And I've yet to see --perhaps I've missed it -- any criticism of Chomsky's support of US Marines putting Aristide back in power in Haiti. Does that make him less of anarchist? More of a right-winger? If so, why? If not, why not?
DP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020926/f15e1ac7/attachment.htm>