****Some of Washington Square's assembled seemed frustrated with the event's muddled message. "It's so irresponsible," a woman sighed in exasperation as Al Sharpton concluded his rousing antiwar polemic. "He doesn't say what we should do." The left is accustomed to refusal. But there may be aspects of Bush's "war on terrorism" that peace activists should support, if they are to persuasively oppose its murderous violence. The current bombing campaign is killing innocent people, creating a relief crisis in a destitute country and further destabilizing an already-perilous region. It is dangerously limitless in its scope and military insiders are expressing serious concerns about whether it will even accomplish its goals. Yet given that terrorism is an immediate and continuing threat, protesters must be able to discuss alternative approaches to national security. "We'd like to see a united international effort to bring [the terrorists] to justice," rally organizer Reecha Upadhyay said, admitting that the movement was finding it difficult to figure out how this would work. "We know what we shouldn't do."****
I'm curious whether anyone on this list would still consider this to be a sensible comment?
[WS:] It is a sensible comment inasmuch as it asks for a specific and constructive policy that can offer an alternative to the current neo-con warmongering - as opposed to the usual left's negative reaction to the status quo. I think that the lack of such constructive alternative in the left and liberal circles after the US defeat in Vietnam was a significant contribution to Reagan 'revolution' and the rise of the rumsfelds, cheneys, wolfs and the gang.
In a way, the post Vietnam war period was the post WW1 history repeating itself twice, as a farce, of a sort. The disgruntled Frei korpsmen and assorted right wing trolls were regrouping underneath the very liberal veneer of Weimer Germany, gained political power thanks to the impasse of parliamentary politics due to the internal bickering of the left, and used a phony terrorist attack (the torching of the Reichstag by a loon) to solidify their grip on national politics and eliminate the opposition and then quickly led the nation to a war that ultimately undercut the German 'empire.'
In a similar fashion, the neo-cons in the were preparing their Reagan 'revolution while liberals and lefties were talking about détente and devolution of the empire. Like the nazis, the Bushies took advantage of the political impasse created in part by splits among the liberals an lefties, and solidified their control of national politics using a terrorist attack as a pretext. Like the nazis, they led the nation to a war that after an initial success, is starting to undercut the US empire. The main difference is that while the Nazis staged a highly intense drama, the Bushies are staging a farce.
An important lesson from these two events is that the German nazis and their watered-down farcical US version (neo-cons and the Bushies) could rise mainly due to the political vacuum created by a defeat of their respective countries in a war (WW1 and Vietnam). The liberal and lefities did not fill that vacuum, mainly because they did not have a constructive alternative past their protest making. Whether they could fill that vacuum had thy had such a constructive alternative is subject to debate, but the fact remains that they did not have such an alternative. Perhaps Henry Kissinger had, but he was neither a liberal (let alone a lefite,) nor the liberals (let alone lefties) would support his policy vision. And since power abhors vacuum, neo-cons stepped in and fill with their poisonous vision.
So the bottom line is, stop stomping your feet, speaking in tongues, and bitching, and come up with a constructive and realistic alternative.
Wojtek