Yoshie,
I am not sure that you've thought this statement through to any great extent. If anything it is a sign of the weakness of a "revolution" that it has to rely on the officer corp of the old regime. Of course such revolutionary military groups are not unusual. My favorite because I followed it so closely when I was a teenager was the 1974 Armed Forces Movement in Portugal. Of course it was preceded by massive organization among the population against the previous fascist regime. The question I have here is whether a movement that leads to profound political change, (not to say a social revolution) can ever have the military as a major factor of the leadership. Portugal was the best case because the military was actually radicalized by the combination of colonial wars and a thorough-going workers movement. In places like the Philippines and the downfall of Marcos or Indonesia, and the downfall Suharto factions of military officers usually flip over to the opposition rather late both to save some bloodshed and attempt to shuffle the cards while leaving a stacked deck.
I bring this up because one of the two or three things that makes me skeptical about Venezuela and Chavez's leadership is the function of the military....
Jerry Monaco
___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060426/f72b9c6f/attachment.htm>