Dennis Perrin wrote:
>
>
> ObL couldn't have done better for Bush and the war than if he worked for the
> USG itself. But that could never be, could it?
If the aim is to destroy the u.s. empire and drive the u.s. out of the Middle East, u.s. troops have to be brought within reach of the forces and weapons at the disposal of its adversaries. 9/11 accomplished that. Probably the most successful terrorist action in history. Were the u.s. to withdraw from Iraq now (though actually there is no danger of that), its forces would again be out of reach of the allies of ObL. The man seems sophisticated enough to think in such terms.
Also, "better for Bush and the war" seems to equate the war with Bush, which is wrong, for it should be equated with all the major ruling elements in the u.s. Bush won't be around much longer, and this pounding away at him as though he were the enemy is profoundly mistaken.
Cockburn's quite persuasive article on the anti-war movement in the current NLR rightly focuses on the DP and its friends as the primary enemy of the anti-war movement _as a movement_. Mere opposition to the war is utterly empty unless it is made the point of departure for rebuilding a left in the u.s.
Carrol