Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> Has it? Do we really know that? I've seen claims to the contrary -
> that AQ is on the run and not recruiting new members - but who knows?
> Does anyone?
That is correct. And of course in reference to specific individuals (e.g., bin Laden) we have no real knowledge whatever as to their personal motives. But I would hold to the _probability_ of my general point (the advantage to reactionary forces in the Arab world) even if AQ is itself destroyed and its leaders killed. The U.S. reinstallation of a puppet regime in Haiti was a complete success for imperialism. The bulk of the population (and even too many would-be leftists) still see it as a successful "humanitarian" intervention. I somehow can't imagine a war on all of the middle east and south asia having the same kind of success, whatever its (bery) shortrange triumphs may be.
The theoretical justification (or one of the major ones) of terrorism is to trigger a repressive response that generates more enemies for the authority attacked. I don't think it usually works. I don't think it _ever_ works for left forces. I think it _may_ be working for reactionary arab forces in the case of 9/11. I would speculate, for example, that democratic reform in Iran would have moved further (though probably not have "arrived") by this time were it not for 9/11 and the U.S. response.
One of Justin's points holds (and is as near perhaps to an absolute as one can get in politics): a nation cannot work out its internal "problems" (its internal antagonistic contradictions) as long as it is subject to major outside interference. What would have happened to the U.S. if the French armies had remained here as virtual armies of occupation in 1784? What would have happened if European armies had interfered in the U.S. in 1850 to eliminate slavery by external force. (I know -- any actual outside interference would have been to support slavery, but take the other as a hypothetical, a thought experimment.)
Carrol