I'm talking about the man's penchant for violence as a tool of political change. We're actually not that far apart on our general disgust for the system and the need for some sort of revolutionary struggle against it, but the devil, as they say, is in the details.
Consider:
None of the strategies and tactics applied during the Vietnam anti-war movement in the United States were enough, either individually or combined, to stop the U.S. governments military horrors. At the height of the Movement, Nixons response was not to stop the war but to initiate his policy of Vietnamization. This ingenious plan allowed the U.S. government to weaken the anti-war movement while continuing on with the war for another five years. When the peace accords were finally signed in Paris in 1973, they were more a result of the incredible success of the Viet Cong than any realistic effectiveness of the anti-war cause.Perhaps a little bit of analysis to separate those two variables (success of the VC versus domestic opposition) is in order? No -- apparently we're expected to accept the assertion on face value. It's all (or nearly all) the VC. Trust him. Don't ask pesky questions.
That's aside from the general premise that violent means are in general somehow more "powerful" or "effective"than non-violent ones, which is, again, apparently to be accepted strictly on his say-so. No discussions of the negative effects violence has on both the giving and receiving ends, say on how it tends to prevent one from clearly visualizing one's adversaries and instead fosters a simplistic attitude that they're just "evil". No discussions on how violent acts practiced by a small core (such as the Weathermen) ended up being annoyances instead of transformative. No consideration that nonviolent direct action practiced on a much wider scale might be more effective than any amount of violence. No addressing the very poor track record of violent revolutions in establishing free societies in their aftermath. It's all finessed.
And then we get to:
Do not be concerned with public opinion. Public opinion will not stop this war. Action will.Yeah, right. As if there's no such thing as blowback. Care to square that with your other essay asserting that the 9/11 attacks were just that?
Full text here.
At least this "overwhelming support for the war" poll has enough information so one can see just how the question asked was loaded:
Do you support or oppose the U.S. taking military action in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power?Well, gee, I wonder what the poll numbers would have been if the question was:
Do you support or oppose the U.S. taking military action in Iraq in contravention of both the U.S. Constitution and international law?or maybe:
Do you support or oppose the U.S. taking military action in Iraq at a cost of over $100 billion with only minimal support and assistance from our allies?
This past week, mobs have looted the Iraqi National Museum, home to ten thousand years worth of priceless relics from the land where the first civilization dawned. Instead of loud condemnation, we're treated to explanations of how such actions "are only to be expected at a time like this", or some other such rationalization.
International law is crystal clear: it's the responsibility of the occupying power to preserve order and provide for the civilians in the nation it occupies. If the looting was expected, that makes it even less forgivable, because it means that the US was expecting it to happen and deliberately did nothing.
Of course, "doing something" would have probably involved shooting a few would-be looters, which would have opened up criticism of the US occupiers shooting civilians (and rightly so). Yes, this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. As I've said before, war is not pretty. If the Bush regime can't stomach the likely causes, then they should have stayed the hell out of Iraq.
Such basic cluelessness of the essential situation does not exactly bode well for the future of the occupation. But then again, what else would one expect from the administration that requested nothing in its budget for the reconstruction of Afghanistan?
Monthly Index for 2003 |
Index of Years