[lbo-talk] We do not need an exit strategy. We need an exit.

Travis Fast tfast at yorku.ca
Sun Nov 20 11:40:54 PST 2005


Michael Pugliese wrote:


> It isn't
>entirely a, "Social Imperialist, " Democrat illusion to be very
>concerned that U.S. withdrawal, which I favor ASAP, as it feeds the
>insurgency and slaughter of masses of civilians, could, after we get
>the fuck outta there, lead to a an even more vicious (if that is
>possible! but, it is, if you are a realist)
>civil war.
>
Um how could a civil war, which if your analysis is correct already is in motion, be more vicious sans US and British fire power? All things being equal a pull out would mean that scenes like Falluja will not be possible given none of the parties involved in the intercene violence would have the capacity to launch such an assault. So if you are a realist --i.e., you take into account not only the desire for violence but the means for making violence, a pull-out reduces means through which violence can be carried out. A realist would say that there is no reason that conflict will look anything much different than what is already going on minus the capacity of one group to call in disproportionate levels of violence in an unsuccessful attempt to pacify their perceived enemies. So to tar comrade Carrol here is a little unfair given that we do not have good reason to suppose the level of violence will be any greater and some to suggest it would be less.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list