Eubulides wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <uvj at vsnl.com>
>
> Issues like the state of the US economy, global warming, proliferation of
> WMDs etc. -don't seem to bother the US Left? It's always Iraq, Iraq and
> Iraq. There are no other issues in the coming US election?
>
> Ulhas
>
> ==========================
>
> [talking about Iraq is a way to begin to get a handle on the future of a
> mighty big beast, Ulhas. But, yeah, you're right......]
Ian, your juxtapositions of _very_ brief comments with long but unglossed quotations (the method of Pound's Cantos, incidentally, but what works for a fascist epic poem is not necessarily a useful method for conversation among leftists) almost always baffles me. In the present instance I have not the slightest notion of your intention, but let me say how I would construe the material you offer, and you may contradict me where I go wrong.
Your post confirms my own perspective that talking about Iraq is [NOT JUST] a way to begin to get a handle on the future of a mighty big beast, but in fact is the ONLY way in which the left can create an audience with which we may discuss and act on the many other pressing concerns of the world today. The phrase "But, yeah, you're right" above is a typographical error.
In the text below, Arkin makes on fundamentally false assumption when he notes that war plans "can't create a better world," for of course those plans are not intended to create a better world but rather a necessity for the preservation of the u.s. empire as it now exists in a world of independent states which the u.s. must depend on to maintain order. Only an intermittently endless war can maintain the minimal degree of coherence & order required in a fundamentally incoherent world 'order.'
We can't predict what or where, if anything or anywhere, will be the "weakest link" of this imperial stystem, but one among a number of possibilities will be its ability (or inability) to maintain the support 'at home' necessary to maintain this endless war.
As I understand it, that in fact is the core of the current campaign, Kerry & Bush representing contrasting strategies for maintaining that homefront support for "The War." The dispute (at least on this list) among leftists concerns (a) the weight leftists might have in the current campaign and (b) whether that weight should go to supporting one imperialist strategy (Kerry's) or be wholly focused on building an anti-interventionist movement outside the electoral arena.
As it turned out, only the first part of this post makes even a pretense of construing Ian's post, but that part was a real query, not a pretense. The rest was added as my fingers tripped merrily along.
Carrol
> U.S. MILITARY
> War Plans Meaner, Not Leaner
> By William M. Arkin
> William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly for
> Opinion. E-mail: warkin at igc.org.
>
> March 21, 2004
>
> SOUTH POMFRET, Vt. - When Donald Rumsfeld was named secretary of Defense
> in 2001, he made clear that his department would break with the past. He
> vowed to abandon outmoded Cold War military planning and eliminate
> Clinton-era strategies that officials felt were both bloated and
> misdirected.
[clip]
> But in their single-minded desire to maintain global strike forces at the
> ready, Rumsfeld and his planners betray a blind spot. Military triumphs
> are only part of the picture. Unless as much planning goes into the peace
> that follows victory, even the best-laid war plans can't create a better
> world.