[lbo-talk] Let Ralph Debate in 2004

[Joseph Wanzala]

the phrase 'reckless militarism' strikes me as something of a tautology; 
militarism is by definition reckless about the human toll, and somewhat 
reckless (arrogant) about 'side-effects' like the sort of opposition the US 
is experiencing in Iraq. But I do not know that we can conclude that the 
recent US military interventions (Afghanistan, Iraq) have been reckless in 
terms of strategic goals. I would argue that the strategic goals were quite 
well thought out - and I think they are still unfolding. To that extent, I 
think the Bush administration has been no more reckless than the US bombing 
of Yugoslavia (which contemplated ground troops) or Indo-China for that 
matter. As Chomsky has pointed out - while the US may have appeared to have 
'lost' the Vietnam war militarily, it achieved political and strategic 
victories. The same may prove true of the US intervention in the Middle 
East. At any rate, however you might want to charaterize the Iraq war, I 
don't believe it has been carried out - or is going forward without 
planning.

Joe W.


>From: Dwayne Monroe <idoru345 at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: [lbo-talk] Let Ralph Debate in 2004
>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:04:32 -0800 (PST)
>
>Doug wrote:
>
>I'm amazed how provincial some people are about this -
>several billion non-USers are extremely alarmed by the
>Bush admin. *They* think something is different - as
>Zizek put it, one of those differences of degree
>becoming a difference of kind. We owe it to the
>outside world to get rid of the thugs.
>
>===============
>
>
>
>Exactly.
>
>The Bush admin is dangerous for reasons that we can
>see clearly - the reckless militarism - and for
>reasons that creep beneath the surface.
>
>They are seeking to change, permanently we must
>assume, the character of the culture.  They wish to
>eradicate all areas of American life that do not fit
>into their vision - such as it is.  This is why
>Ashcroft, to cite a prominent example, is so
>important: he seeks to create new norms that will
>outlast his tenure.
>
>Already, by invading Iraq, the Busheviks have
>succeeded in creating an occupation that will continue
>in one form or another for years to come - regardless
>of who's sitting in the White House.  There are other
>violent endeavors underway which are being made
>permanent features of US foreign policy.  Collectively
>these actions should be seen as little steps towards
>global suicide.
>
>If the year was 1740, this would be bad but not a
>threat to the health of the species.  Considering the
>destructiveness of the weapons at the world's disposal
>and the threats we face requiring international
>cooperation but which are being neglected while the US
>attempts to reverse its decline through force, the
>potential for a bad end for everyone - sooner or later
>- should not be dismissed as alarmist fantasy.
>
>I believe Zizek laid out the stakes effectively in his
>essay, *THE IRAQ WAR: WHERE IS THE TRUE DANGER?* an
>excerpt from which is copied below.
>
>
>DRM
>
>
>.....
>
>
>
>
>
>from -
>
>
>http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-the-iraq-war-where-is-the-true-danger.html
>
>
>THE IRAQ WAR: WHERE IS THE TRUE DANGER?
>Slavoj Zizek.
>Lacan.com 03.13.2003.
>
><snip>
>
>
>We do have here a kind of perverted Hegelian "negation
>of negation": in a first negation, the populist Right
>disturbs the aseptic liberal consensus by giving voice
>to passionate dissent, clearly arguing against the
>"foreign threat"; in a second negation, the "decent"
>democratic center, in the very gesture of pathetically
>rejecting this populist Right, integrates its message
>in a "civilized" way - in-between, the ENTIRE FIELD of
>background "unwritten rules" has already changed so
>much that no one even notices it and everyone is just
>relieved that the anti-democratic threat is over. And
>the true danger is that something similar will happen
>with the "war on terror": "extremists" like John
>Ashcroft will be discarded, but their legacy will
>remain, imperceptibly interwoven into the invisible
>ethical fabric of our societies. Their defeat will be
>their ultimate triumph: they will no longer be needed,
>since their message will be incorporated into the
>mainstream.
>
>...
>
>full at link above
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
>http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger with backgrounds, emoticons and more. 
http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_customize