Bafflement at the balance of forces

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 23/11/01 22:59 -0600, Carrol wrote:

> As to the response being "inevitable" -- of course. But I am utterly
> baffled as to why anyone would utter this banal truism.


> What some of us have been trying to establish since nearly the beginning
> over two months ago is that _any_ defense of _any_ U.S. response,
> whatever the write claims (or whatever the writer believes him/herself
> to be defending) is a de facto defense of carpet bombing, support of
> "anti-terrorist terrorists" (e.g., the N.A.), etc.
>
> The only legitimate policy options for the U.S. government (as someone
> on LBO suggested, are those options which would ALSO be available to
> Luxemburg.


Although some of Carrol's assertions are incisive, it is hard to comment on
this statement of what is "legitimate" except with another assertion. It is
quite idealist.

Facing the reality of power relations must be "baffling" if your integrity
is based on not addressing that reality.

What is the point of pure oppositionalism if it requires living on a
different planet to the rest of the population?

Against whose law is the standard of what is "legitimate" to be set?


In theory and in practice the progressive response to the war plans of US
imperialism was to modify them. That has been successful to a substantial
degree and can be still more successful.



Chris Burford

London