Nathan writes: What is the criterion here for when state violence is potentially progressive and when, as Yoshie argues, there is no "we" attached to an inherently anti-worker state? Is anarchism the only moral position until after the cataclysm of world revolution? [another post] Would the fear be that violent intervention, as opposed to support of a nonviolent transition, would pave the way for the deradicalization of the ANC? Would the fear be that the economic losses of war would lead to a new US-allied ANC government subordinating its economic policy to the dictates of the International Monetary Fund? Is my skepticism of the imperialist need for violent intervention (and thus a certain bias towards the possibility of humanitarian use of it) completely unjustified? --Nathan Newman Discussions on US based lists sooner or later seem to come around to what THE RULE should be, so that we can all organize our ideas and lives accordingly. What if scenarios are trundled out to suggest how somehwere, sometime hegemonic state-sponsored carnage might be justified. At 3000 miles remove from the US, I have come to see this sort of argumentation as a product of the peculiar political/legal culture you all swim in. Here Nathan seems to want one test that will allow us to come up with a 0 or 1, bomb or not bomb. I recognize his note on the left's call for US intervention in the Spanish Civil War. And -- playing the thought experiment game now too -- I imagine there could be a US intervention I might support -- though it IS VERY HARD to imagine. Clearly, though, this one isn�t it. Isn't that clear enough? This brand of murderous opportunistic stupidity is accelerating exactly that which the "humanitarians" sought to avoid (cleansing), because the politics of war making is so obviously and predictably compromised. Given the way things are, this action (bombing) NEVER stood a chance of being a "best shot" or even a "good shot" at stopping murderous cleansing. Wishful thinking to the contrary is self-delusionary bullshit. "Oh, so we should just do nothing?" Chomsky says yes: 1st, do no harm, he noted. Knowing the history of US imperialism, I agree. And I would try to radically blow open the range of options, not reduce them simply to bomb/not bomb. I am inspired in this by the Peace Brigades International example, of accompanying/protecting people in Guatemala, El Salvador, etc. Cowards hurl munitions from 15,000 feet; actors of principle would put themselves constructivly into the fray in other ways (bearing christian witness; sitting in front of tanks, etc.). As I write this, I get pissed too ... replicating Nathan's working from the guts, not the brain. But I'm pissed at e-scribbling at safe cyber-remove justifying rains of death. I have lived through wars, and as I read arguments here for the logic of bombing, I can't but conclude that those who support it haven't. It's simple, really: aerial bombardmanet unifies taget populations, strengthens local despots, and exacerbates old and plants the seeds of new long term hatred and conflict. Stop Milosevic's murders? OK, but not like this. Tom P.S. Last night on CNN images of town centers, homes, etc. destroyed. Nathan: is the reponse "Ooops"? "Inevitable collateral damage"? This IS what you are advocating -- you can't just be for the "good" hits. PP.SS. Guantanamo and Guam the destination of refugees "taken in temporaraliy" by the US? I hope the sick fucking logic of that doesn�t escape us. Brian Atwood, head of USAID and in charge of refugee ops for the US (USAID is State Department) was on PBS last night, and when asked why not the mainland he hemmed and hawed. The dipshit interviewer let him get away with it. Tom Kruse Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-4) 248242, 500849 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
