Re: [lbo-talk] We do not need an exit strategy. We need an exit.Nathan Newman wrote:
>What is "self-determination"?
>
>
-Having power over one's life, something that liberals will never trust -to the people.
But remove US troops and individual Iraqis won't have control over their own lives. They'll just be stuck in the cross-hairs between suicde bombers, Shiite clerics and others using guns to deny them freedom-- with lots of outside interests manipulating the situation for their own purposes.
And this is different from the fact on the ground now? One strategy is to insist on an immediate pull out and a commitment from the USG to massive reparations to the Iraqi people to be delivered to the first popularly elected Iraqi government. And nothing stops the US from attempting to covertly undermine those providing covert support to the different fractions in Iraq. But the real politic of the situation is that the USG has no intention of leaving and no intention of supporting anyone who does not support their interests in the ME which has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy. Although it would be a nice veneer if they could get it but they are not going to insist on it.
Travis
Re: [lbo-talk] We do not need an exit strategy. We need an exit. 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.
Travis
Re: [lbo-talk] We can lose, or we can just lose later
Would not this question be posed better as one of strategy? It seems to me that one does not need to be 'thankful' for the soldiering provided by troops in Iraq but can at the same time be sympathetic. The point is the war is wrong, the American people in the aggregate were wrong to support the war via acts of commission and omission and their political representatives were wrong. This being the case there is a collective responsibility for the war. So if boddi's argument is that the soldiers are no more guilty of perpetuating this war then the majority of Americans than the question becomes one of trying to get all Americans who supported and support the war to take up responsibility for their actions and make attrition. The question of being thankful or not really misses the political point. The question is what is the best strategy to get returning soldiers to think about their contribution to the war and get them to speak against the war. Blindly thanking them or demonizing them is not going to accomplish anything politically.
Travis
Doug Henwood wrote:
> boddi satva wrote:
>
>> I know I'm over-posting, but honestly you don't see a difference
>> between thanking active-duty soldiers for their service
>
>
>
> Why should I? Most of what they do is appalling. The war on Iraq is
> fucking criminal.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Gar Lipow wrote
>>
>>
>But Boddi is the one insisting on "thanking" them and "gratitude"
>(as is umm Leah I think). Almost nobody on this list is talking
>about demonizing returning soldiers. I twice gave a Vietnam era
>example that specifically rebuts the idea that I'm for "demonizing"
>returning troops. And Carrol has mentioned on occasion that he was
>involved in the part of the movement that provided coffee houses for
>returnees during the Vietnam war, so I bet he could tell similar
>stories if he wanted to bother. (Mind you I don't want to take this
>too far. Not holding returnees a little bit responsible for their own
>actions is to deny them agency - which is also a form of disrespect.)
>But gratitude and thankfulness for their actions is IMO way over the
>line. When you go that far, you have just conceded most of the
>premises of a particular form of military-worshipping right wing
>extremism.
>
>
Yah I agree I just think the point needs to be made that there is
nothing that separates soldiers culpability for the war from Americans
who approved and then later confirmed that approval in a national
electoral vote. So singling out soldiers for special treatment here is
rather odd. And I might say that the degree of Agency a senator,
congessperson or civilian has is greater than that of a soldier.
Notions that they have a choice because they could revolt or refuse to
serve is equivalent to holding that the US population is guilty because
they did not revolt or refuse to pay their taxes which are ultimately
what is funding this rampage in the garden. So yes all Ameicans need to
take responsibility for their agency. And if they did then they might
find it easier to convince soldiers to deal with their cognitive
dissonance in a more healthy and progressive way.
Travis
Re: [lbo-talk] We can lose, or we can just lose later
The point is Yoshie, you can either take the approach that the average soldier is no more and no less responsible then the average AMerican for the war and use this as the basis of trying to convince them not to en-list or re-enlist or you can get on a moral high horse, act holier than though and try to convince them not to enlist /re-enlist by making them more responsible for the war than say yourself. Which strategy do you think would be better?
Travis
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
It's a fact of life that some have more agency than others regarding the Iraq War, being more directly involved in war-making than others. Let's say that 4,000 civilian Americans refuse to pay taxes, following the advice of the War Registers' League (cf. <http:// www.warresisters.org/how_to_resist.htm>). That will have little tangible material impact on the war-making capacity of the US government (if the tax resisters in question are poor, they may not be paying much tax even without tax disobedience). If 4,000 Army soldiers refuse to reenlist, however, that will have far more impact than 4,000 (or even 40,000 or 400,000) civilian tax resisters.
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20051127/70f0901e/attachment.htm>