(Under)estimating your enemy

["Elisha Stephens" <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bush & Co. are taking heat for underestimating their enemy
militarily. Our battle against Bush & Co. is a political battle,
and we should make sure we don't underestimate our enemy.

Something to consider which I don't think has been emphasized
enough: there was no Gulf of Tonkin to start this war. In
Afghanistan, there was the "real" reason of attacking a country
that was harboring, and perhaps aiding, people who it was
believed (and with hindsight, almost certainly did) killed
nearly 3000 in a terrorist attack. In Yugoslavia, there was the
alleged need to stop "ethnic cleansing." Whether this was
totally bogus as in the Gulf on Tonkin or not I leave to you,
but it was a reason presented to the world and most of the
world believed it. In Gulf War I obviously there was the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait.

But in this war - nothing. Sure, they offered up a bunch of
reasons, but it wasn't just leftists who saw through this as
total crap. But more to the point of this post - the ruling
class simply didn't really care. Blair got up in the House of
Commons yesterday (I seem to have lost the URL, so this is from
memory) and said "After resolution 1441, Hussein did nothing."
Nothing? The Iraqis let inspectors crawl all over their country,
inspect anything they wanted up to and including Saddam
Hussein's nighttable (figuratively and perhaps literally for
all I know), and even destroyed a bunch of missiles whose
violation of UN resolutions was questionable to say the least?
This was "doing nothing"? [As an aside here, despite Hans
Blix's current mutterings and hurt feelings, I assign him at
least 1% blame for this war with his stupid "active cooperation"
vs. "passive cooperation" line. What did he want the Iraqis
to do? Jump up in the air, click their heels twice, and shout
"Whoopee we're being disarmed!"? If he hadn't bent (IMHO) to the
US pressure and continued to talk about the lack of "active
cooperation", I think the pressure at the UN would have been
even greater, and the UK MIGHT have had to demand an extra
three months inspections as the price of their participating in
the coalition invasion. But I digress...]. But Blair can get
away with obvious nonsense like this.

And Bush & Co.? Powell gets up in the UN and spouts nonsense
about attempts to buy uranium from Niger, and aluminum tubes,
and chemical weapons plants in Kurdish-controlled Iraq, and
when even the UN says "this is nonsense" his response is to
thumb his nose at them (or give them the finger, whatever image
you like). I keep thinking of the old joke whose punchline is
"Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?" The US
was (and is) in such a strong position politically that they
could openly lie to the world and dare anyone to do anything
about it.

So they are politically strong enough to start this war without
a pretext. This is significant in my opinion and insufficiently
appreciated.

Actions after the war has started underline this political
strength. What has the world done? France and Germany have
thrown in the towel. That's no surprise, but where is everyone
else? There has been talk since before the war started of a
"Uniting for Peace" resolution out of the UN General Assembly,
where one has the impression that a majority of countries are
against the war, or at least they were before it started (but
so were France, Germany, etc.). The war has now been going on
for two weeks and where is this resolution? Cuba and Malaysia
and other Non-Aligned Movement countries are still talking
about it. Now I certainly don't understand the mechanics of
the process, maybe it has to go through committee or
something, but it certainly seems like the response has been
feeble indeed.

Has anyone broken relations with the US? Expelled the US
ambassador (or the US "interests section" in the case of
Cuba)? Nothing.

There is even a deafening silence just in speech. Where is
Fidel? I've seen nothing from him at all. Nelson Mandela?
Nothing. Now maybe they are speaking out and the press is
muzzling them. But with antiwar.com and other Internet sources,
it seems to me I would have seen something from "people of
respect" like these. So far the single person of any stature,
and it's a pretty small stature, who I have seen speaking out
is Dennis Kucinich, who delivered a "Troops Out Now" speech on
the floor of the House yesterday. Now I personally won't be
voting for Kucinich unless he repudiates the Democrat party;
even then it's doubtful. Nonetheless I believe he is exhibiting
tremendous courage in speaking out, and for that he gets my
respect (but not my vote). OK, George Galloway gets the same
kudos. Other than those two, who?

Now as with my comments the other day about Madonna, I can't
fault the Cubans or the Syrians or anyone who is NOT taking
action, or strong enough action. They have their reasons. And
that is precisely the point of this post - the political
strength of the US is such right now that it can muzzle the
entire world, even the progressive forces, for fear of being on
the wrong end of an embargo or a gun should they "act up."

Am I discouraged by all this? I am not. I simply don't want to
delude myself into thinking that, just because the US is being
"led" by someone who gives every appearance of being a complete
idiot, that the forces arrayed against us are anything but
immensely strong, not just militarily, but politically. However,
in the face of this, I take my point of departure from
something that Larry Holmes said last year (quoted in Workers
World, Oct. 3, 2002):

"Holmes pointed out that what the working-class and anti-war
movement does inside the United States "has to be decisive.
Everybody is depending on what we do.""

"Will the war crisis and the economic crisis "wake up the
working class and melt away its passivity? We are obliged to
act as though the answer is affirmative," said Holmes."

Now to me that has the sound of some long-time movement saying,
but it was the first time I've heard it, and unless someone
corrects me, I'll be glad to give Larry credit for it. I'm
going to rephrase it in the way I think of it (but the thought
and quote is certainly still Larry's, not mine):

"Can what we do make a difference? WE ARE OBLIGED TO ACT as
though the answer is yes."

Maybe the enemies of Marxists are right and Marxism takes on
some aspects of religion. Because that statement is something I
simply take on faith. "WE ARE OBLIGED TO ACT AS THOUGH THE
ANSWER IS YES."







_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail