Dear Comrades,

Though I have little time for the depth of debate that this issue  deserves, I must speak up for Carl Davidson and his thinking. While I do  not agree with all aspects of his analysis or the policy that flows from  it, I must say that his central core is well grounded and and a platform  from which one can begin to plot a mass strategy. Further, it is always  well researched, insightful, and based on an abiding commitment to socialism.

It is important for us to remember that when analyzing the capabilities and  actions of the Imperialists/US Government policy, merely saying that they  have the capacity to accomplish certain ends does not mean that we endorse  those ends. It is also important to recognize in a strategic analysis when  class forces have common goals however transitory - lest one pursue a strategy of no allies for the working class and the nationally oppressed.

Finally, as the imperialists never forget their own self interest, their  policies and actions always have a dual edge and we must choose our  critisms and positions carefully to best illuminate these contradictions. This means choosing some issues to emphasize and while not  condoning others permitting our attention to be directed to where the  greatest leverage and education can be reaped.

I believe in this situation the demand for security in peoples' lives is a  just demand as is the immediate demand of destroying the capability of Al  Queda to commit terroristic acts. This immediate goal is held in common  with capitalists at all levels and all countries. I believe that the left  can increase it's following and size by hammering away at the fact that  while the capitalists, under the lead of US imperialists, can destroy Al  Queda and prevent it from moving money and consequently people large  distances (as it can only do this with the active collaboration of  sectors of capital), the imperialists can never remove the national  grievances that give rise to this response on the part of so many. It can  never remove this, as it is the nature of Imperialism to subjugate  countries, national working classes and national capitalists to secure its  profits.

This understanding allows us to concentrate on the long term solutions to  people's security concerns and develop positions that assure peace,  justice, civil liberties, and the rights of workers and national liberation  movements to organize.

I fear the above is as esoteric as much of the Internet rhetoric I have  seen. For this I apologize, but I feel strongly that all demands and  actions of the left need to be subjected to our best attempts at Marxian  analysis at risk of us missing the opportunity to congeal the immediate  demands of the peoples movements into a strategy for a world without  exploitation and oppression.

peter orris

___________________________________________________________________

On reading Leon Wofsy's thoughtful piece, I realized what this and other thematically similar articles have in common. They often start with a formulation such as, "organized acts of terrorism demand powerful and effective counter measures." I agree, but what are the counter measures?  It is almost as if the authors believe that by having made such a declaration, they no longer need to say what ought to be tried when they explain exactly why nothing that the US is doing will work.

Perhaps progressives might be unified on the subject if there was an alternative policy to unify around. Several lines of thought have emerged, but none of them really do it. The "bomb them with butter" school is fine on humanitarian grounds, but unlikely to change the minds of terrorists. The "Israel must be made to … " school is also right in principle, but too long-term in producing results to keep us from being blown up. Ditto to saying that "the US must change its whole whatever." Wofsy's call for "collaboration based on international law and the United Nations" is also good but won't kick in during the next few months. Even the most immediate, dramatic and improbable reversal of American foreign policy is unlikely to produce the short term result of stopping terrorist attacks.

So what are we left with? We are left with numerous progressive articles saying that the US war measures will accomplish nothing or worse than nothing, from which the casual reader might conclude that it would be best if the US did nothing.

Doing nothing is not a reasonable proposal. As long as it is probable  that some nut is thinking about taking out the Empire State Building, we have to hope that, if nothing else, the bombing at Tora Bora will at least make such a person think twice. Perhaps it won't. Does anyone have a better idea?

Steve Max

___________________________________________________________________

In Point #4 Carl Davidson says that al-Qaeda's attack is similar to (but more powerful than) Timothy McVeigh's in Oklahoma City.

Indeed, they are similar in a way that Davidson may not realize. The feds were warned of the Oklahoma City bombing by an  undercover agent at Elohim City, a Christian Nazi compound in eastern Oklahoma. But the feds did not prevent it. Did they just screw up or was it intentional? The bombing was followed by  the anti-terror law of 1996.  The WTC attack, of course, was followed by more repressive measures. And there is evidence that the Bush crowd knew this attack was coming, although they may have been rudely astounded by its magnitude.

Per Fagereng

Portland, Oregon

____________________________________________________________________

Carl Davidson has recently responded to some reactions commenting on  his comments regarding the Cornell Statement that folks sent to  Portside, and which was posted.

As one who criticized Carl's earlier position (although I didn't  think it necessary to respond to his comments regarding the Cornell  Statement), I want to respond to his "responses." I disagree  strongly with his position. I know this might seem tedious to  some/all on the list, but the ramifications of what he is arguing has  considerable political consequences that I think need to be discussed.

For sake of some brevity, I will try to respond only to major points  rather than all points I would like to comment on. I will post my  comments inside of his responses.

>I will try to be as brief and clear as possible in response to these three >critics. > >First, I am not opposed to printing antiwar statements on portside. I just >didn't think the Cornell statement was very good, because it seemed apparent >to me that much of it had been refuted by events. What was apparent to me, >obviously, is not apparent to others.

>

>Second, I am as dubious of government press releases and biased media as >anyone. That's why I study a wide variety of sources, here and abroad, and >try to make an assessment. I'm one of the few folks I know who has read >through every one of bin Laden's Fat was in English - a rather  >tortuous task, I >might add.

>

>Third, I think ideas and analyses are best seen as having consequences in a >real context. We can't just wish things into being; we have to deal with the >forces at hand, that history has given us. For instance, we might want to >see an Afghan government that was like RAWA, the women's organization there.  >But that's not possible now or in the near future. The real choice was >between the al-Qaeda/Taliban regime and the one being put in place now, with >the Northern Alliance and other anti-Taliban groups, and being shaped by a >US-UN protectorate. The current regime at least allows the possibility of >progressive change. The al-Qaeda/Taliban regime had the blood of hundreds of >thousands on its hands, and if it had been allowed to continue, the prospects >were for hundreds of thousands more dying with no prospects of positive >change.This is not just my opinion, but is widely shared by progressive >analysts with far greater knowledge than me. For instance, see Ahmed Rashid's >book, Taliban.

I agree that ideas and analyses have consequences in a real  context--but, these analyses must be based on accurate data and  information (or at least as accurate as we can possibly locate at the  latest time). And the "analysis" must be logical and make common  sense. Unfortunately, this "third" point is so dubious that it  illustrates the weaknesses in the larger argument.

Without questioning any thing about it, Carl states that the choice  was between the "al-Queda/Taliban regime and the one being put in  place now ... and being shaped by a US-UN protectorate." There are  several large gaps in his logic--claims he accepts uncritically, and  then uses them as fact, so as to build his argument. He assumes that  the attacks on 9/11 were carried out by al-Qaeda (I'm using his  spelling), and then assumes that al-Qaeda and the Taliban were one  and the same. This can only begin to make sense IF and ONLY IF these  organizations were in one hierarchical and centralized organization  under a unified command structure.

Three points: (1) No one, not even George W himself, has made this  claim that al-Qaeda is a hierarchical and centralized organization  under a unified command structure, much less supported this with  evidence. (In fact, it seems from most reports that it is recognized  to be a de-centralized organization.) It hasn't been proven in a  court of law, but even if the 9/11 attackers were part of al-Qaeda,  it hasn't been shown that they were operating under any direct orders  from a central leadership--it is just as possible that they were  operating on their own, acting on their own initiative. It may be  argued that I'm trying to deny "reality," but this seems to be an  absolutely central point that needs to be uncontrovertaby  established, and this it simply has not been done. To suggest  otherwise is simply "sophistry"/or other such (insert your favorite  barnyard epithet).

(2) Even if that could be established--and again, it has not  been--there has not been any real proof offered, much less  established, that Bin Ladin was the head of such an organization.  Yes, there has been Bush's "tape" that supposedly was a smoking gun,  but there are MAJOR problems with that--I recently posted an article  from a Lahore, Pakistan paper that examined the issues raised by the  tape and found many, many problems with it. (Just one quick point:  in the tape, it has "Bin Ladin" claiming that he had heard about the  attacks in NY by 5:30 pm in Afghanistan, when that would have been  8:30 am in NYC--the first attack on the WTC took place AFTER 8:30 am,  and much closer to 9 am.) Note that the claims made about what it  showed were all made after the tape surfaced, not before--and I find  that "post-event" development very curious, especially when done by  one side that has a direct interest in getting its position accepted.  I'm sure Carl would not have accepted such dubious shit about a  situation in the US, so I find it surprising that he would accept it  in a situation overseas, where it has much less chance to be examined  and questioned.

Even if the tape is found to be absolute 100% "pure" and totally  accurate, I've yet to see an account that convinces me that it is a  "smoking gun" regarding Bin Ladin's role in the operation. All it  seems to show to me is that he knew about an imminent attack, perhaps  even knew the target, but at most, that defines him as a CONSPIRATOR,  not a perpetrator. There is a qualitative difference, well  established in US law, between knowing about something, and ordering  and/or carrying it out.

(3) And even if points 1 & 2 were established, there still has not  been any evidence established that the Taliban leadership were  involved in the 9/11 attacks, much less that the Taliban and al-Qaeda  are one and the same.

Maybe others accept Carl's "logic," but it's on the basis of belief,  not evidence presented publicly to date. Unlike Carl, I'm unwilling  to give Bush the benefit of the doubt: I felt Bush was fucked-up  before 9/11, and I think he is just a much so if not more since 9/11.

>But I'm going to go further and, for sake of argument, not focus  >further on these points. Carl claims that the "The current regime  >at least allows the possibility of progressive change. The  >al-Qaeda/Taliban regime had the blood of hundreds of thousands on its hands, and if it had been allowed to continue, the  prospects were for hundreds of thousands more dying with no prospects  of positive change.This is not just my opinion, but is widely shared  by progressive analysts with far greater knowledge than me. For  instance, see Ahmed Rashid's book, Taliban."

First of all, note that Carl presents no evidence for his claim that  the current regime (he means "Northern Alliance" and its respective  organizations) "allows for the possibility of progressive change."  But we know some things about the NA: we know that about 50,000  people were killed in Kabul under its control in 1992-96. We know  that the Taliban fought this, and while I have no doubt Taliban  forces utilized brutal methods to gain control over Kabul, there has  been no reports of such fighting and wide-spread, indiscriminate  killing under areas under its control. (Let me be clear: I do  not/did not support the Taliban's rule, and opposed their oppression  of women and their general reactionary bullshit, but I think we need  to understand what they did or did not do, and not demonize them:  they were NOT evil incarnate, although Carl suggests they were.  Ironically, the only ones that seem to similarly demonize them are  the Bushies, the rest of the political elite, and their right wing  allies. Shouldn't this raise flags that Carl's analysis is  questionable?) And we also know that the Taliban banned opium poppy  cultivation, a ban that the Northern Alliance has rescinded: we  should be seeing the results in Western Europe and US inner cities  within a year.

Continuing, Carl claims that the al-Qaeda/Taliban regime had the  blood of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS on its hand: shouldn't there be some  proof offered for that claim? First of all, shouldn't the issue of  CIA sponsorship, training, and financing deserve to at least be  reported by Carl: they didn't come out of nowhere. And if the  Taliban were so bad, while did the US Government accept their  assumption of power in 1996...? And where does he get his claim that  "the prospects were for hundreds of thousands more dying with no  prospect of positive change"? Not just his opinion, although he  pulls the name of Ahmed Rashid out of the air: citing one source,  with no discussion of who he is, his political position, of his data  or anything else, does not constitute what can be legitimately called  "widely shared by progressive analysts." I find it quite  questionable that people like Robert Fisk and John Pilger have not,  as far as I can tell, ever made such claims, and Fisk particularly is  one of the most informed people on the region. 

[It seems clear here that we have another case of another US client  (i.e., ally) slipping its leash and acting in ways the master wasn't  too thrilled about. The US has punished Panama for Noreiga, and Iraq  for Hussein, for just the same crime. Undoubtedly there are others  that don't jump immediately to the front of my mind. "Monsters"  that we create should always follow our orders, and if they don't,  we'll bomb the shit out of them so they'll never disobey again. I  find it strange that Carl so uncritically accepts US propaganda  without examining how the US has been acting in the 'Third  World'--the US Empire has been convicted for prior crimes, and is  definitely not a first time offender: why hasn't this material fact  been considered?]

And then we get to the "minor detail" of the US/UN "protectorate."  Excuse me! Who gave the US permission to do anything in Afghanistan?  I don't recall the UN sanctioning Bush's war, and it certainly did  not do it before Bush launched his attack. (And that's assuming we  all agree that the UN has the right to do such.) And who says the  US--with or without UN cover--is "protecting" anyone or anything?  While admittedly the number of civilian casualties are small in  consideration with the amount of bombs/missiles that have hit the  country, it has still be documented that over 3,700 Afghan civilians  have been killed up to early December. Hell, the mafia does a better  job of protection than that! That doesn't mention all the people at  risk for starvation BEFORE the war (which the war hindered getting  supplies to), nor all of the internal refugees that are at risk after  fleeing combat areas, or the numbers that have been terrorized by the  simple sound of a US jet. Somehow, I don't think the US is  protecting anything in Afghanistan, except its reputation of being  willing to do almost anything to maintain its Empire.

In short, I'm unconvinced by Carl's position. He has presented no  evidence, and his logic is weak to non-existent. He makes broad,  self-serving and illogical claims. His argument seems almost totally  based on Bush's claims, which I find a very dubious position to argue  from. If a student had presented me a paper at a similar level of  "analysis," I would flunk that student. And not because the student  disagrees with me, but his argument and evidence are so totally lame.

 > 4. Maybe it will help if my critics see where I'm coming from. To use a >somewhat limited analogy, I see al-Qaeda's attack on us as similar to Timothy >McVeigh's in Oklahoma, only, obviously, on a much more powerful, far-flung >scale. But McVeigh's Christian-White Supremacist Identity fascism has a lot >in common with bin Laden's theocratic fascism. If the militia groups McVeigh >was based in had followed his lead and launched attacks on the heels of >Oklahoma City, would we have a problem calling on the police, FBI and even >National Guard to stop them, break up their groups and bring them to justice. >I hope not. It would even be important for us to help them do so, and to >criticize and pressure them to do the right thing either when they went >overboard or dragged their feet.

Carl claims that al-Qadea's attack is on "us," which he means the US  people. But if it was on "us" in that sense, why did they attack  very specific targets, such as the World Trade Center and the  Pentagon? Wouldn't it have made more sense, if that was what they  wanted to do, so attack our political institutions (Congress, the  Supreme Court, or even the White House) or cause much more diffuse  impacts, such as hitting nuclear power plants, our power grids,  etc??? It's true a lot of innocent people were killed in the  attacks, but that is not the same as attacking the US people as a  whole.

Again, Carl uncritically adopts Bush's position, despite claiming  he's "dubious" of government reports, etc. Excuse me. His position  would be much stronger if he showed some dubiousness, but I've seen  all but none.

> 5. I see al-Qaeda as a present danger. Not everyone agrees with this. >Everyone I know says they opposed the attack on 9/11. Fine, but what about >the fact that these people are trying to do something similar to it again and >again, and that they are desperately working to get a CBW and nuclear >capability (not missiles, but the suitcase variety). If you opposed 9/11, >don't you support doing something now, including armed force, to prevent them >from doing it again? I would sum up the main difference between me and my >critics this way: They are "defeatists" and I am a "defencist" in this >conflict. Their main IMMEDIATE goal is stopping the current war, to DEFEAT  >US imperialism AND to distance themselves from some terrorists in that >context. My main IMMEDIATE goal is to DEFEND all countries, including our >country, against the theocratic fascism of al-Qaeda wherever it is rooted, >including its secret cells here in the US AND to waged a more measured, >protracted struggle vs global Empire, including US reactionaries, in that >context.

 I find it quite interesting that Carl has depoliticized 9/11, and  removed it from almost any political/historical context. Why were  the attacks directed against the US??? Why is there no mention of  the US and its political-economic-cultural Empire, or the millions of  people it has killed since World War II? Why did this even happen?  Why is there no mention of global justice in his position? Why has  he not mentioned that the world's only superpower has been carrying  out a vicious war against people in one of the poorest countries in  the world, utilizing probably every weapon in the US arsenal except  nuclear ones, against a country that basically has no anti-aircraft  defense, and in a country where millions of people are facing the  real threat of starvation this winter?

If Carl wants to be a "defencist" of US imperialism, that is his  right, although I'd suggest there are lists that would be more  ameaneable to his position than this one!

>

>I've written a much longer piece going deeper into these issues posted on >Portside and elsewhere earlier, but now let me answer a few specific points: > >To Warren Montag: I donâ¤�t know how many civilians have been  >killed, and at this point neither does anyone else. Any are too  >many. But the 3700 figure >can show a lot of things. One can compare it to the nearly 20,000 pieces of >ordinance, either dropped from planes or deployed as cruise missiles so far. >That shows that the air war, relative to any other time in history, has been >remarkably effective at focusing on military targets and has not been >deliberately targeting civilians, as was done in Vietnam. A ?daisy-cutter >is a criminal weapon when used against a city, but its another matter when >trying to blast al-Qaeda out of its caves in the mountains. > >To Steven Schroeder: RE: "I'm quite amazed >that Carl has signed on to the 'we have to do >something' line of reasoning that I've heard that >repeatedly from my right wing relatives. It assumes >that the only options are military force and >passivity--which is simply not true" > >I plead guilty to being part of the something crowd; my assessment is >that it includes the vast majority of the country, right, center and >progressive. Most would agree that many means and resources must be used, and >armed force is required as a critical component of stopping and capturing >al-Qaeda. So ?only military ?passivity' is not the way anyone frames >the issue, even the White House. As for Bush's cowboy rhetoric, I think it's >stupid and self-defeating . Luckily, Colin Powell is in charge of the State >Department. 

"My assessment." I find this bogus. Where's his evidence? He  doesn't even claim that he has evidence. It sounds like he's  uncritically accepting those "80%" approval polls, taken of people  who have had nothing but the ghastly US mass media as their source of  information. I don't think even he would defend the narrow spectrum  of what is considered "news" in this country--certainly the support  for the war is much lower in Europe, and part of the reason is that  they are getting a range of opinion in their media, not the boot  licking being done by the US media.

Like Carl, I live in Chicago. In fact, I live about 1/2 mile away  from him, so not even on different sides of the city. I travel  extensively on public transportation, and well as visit friends (of a  wide range of political attitudes, etc) in widely different parts of  the city, and have been doing some short-term work. I've talked with  postal clerks, and others who have been working in different venues.  I've also traveled to southern Wisconsin, central Illinois, and  Detroit since 9/11. I won't claim my evidence meets scientific  standards for proof, but I've been astounded--in the face of the  propaganda barrage--of the LACK of interest in the war by "ordinary"  people. It may be argued that they are the "silent majority" and  that they really support the war, but are not talking about it. But  one thing I am quite certain of: there is definitely not the  "frothing at the mouth" of people that we should be in this war, that  Bush is right, etc. Anytime I'd advanced this position to others,  they have agreed--I've yet to have a single person argue with me  about this lack of "frothing." If Carl has seen this, I'd like to  know when and where.

And "luckily" Colin Powell is in charge of the State Department...?  Boy, I'm relieved! Yes, it could be worse--Paul Wolfowitz (sp?)  could be in charge--but if Powell had any integrity, he wouldn't be  in this Administration! Colin Powell has been working his ass off to  build support for the Bush's war, and I'm not happy or satisfied with  that. Why Carl thinks we're lucky to have him as Secretary of States  escapes me.

In short, I find Davidson's position to be without evidence nor  logic--a rather poor place for a political analyst to be.

One does not have to like the Taliban or Bin Ladin or al-Qeada to  demand a higher level of facts and logic that what Carl has  presented. I find it a rationalization of Bush's war, and a position  morally, politically and every other way bankrupt. By abandoning the  US left's historic efforts to achieve social justice for all, we  would betray people everywhere. I, for one, am unwilling to take  this tact.

And, more importantly, I think it is a crucial misreading of what is  going on in the country. I think there is a real questioning going  on in people's lives, and they turn to simple answers because their  "leaders" suggest that's how they go, and this has been supported by  an incredibly insistent and non-critical stance toward the US  government by the mass media, and the TOTAL abdication of any  responsibility by all but a very small handful of Democrats (Barbara  Lee an important exception). I think the Left's role is to further  that questioning, to talk with people, to engage in political  activities that question this social passivity.

Carl's position would have the left TAIL the Dems--yet again!--a  position which would not lay any groundwork for continued opposition  to the Empire. One question that folks must ask, in my opinion, is  this: say we adopted Carl's position in toto--where would that leave  us? And, in fairness, people should ask that of my position, as  well. Where will be be if W decides to escalate the attack on Iraq,  Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, etc.???

I have no doubt that, if we are going to ever become a political  force of a consequence again in this country, that we must offer an  alternative, a positive alternative. The left is quite good at  screaming "no!", and Carl IS right that we have to go beyond this.  But supporting an immoral and bankrupt system that has causes  suffering and misery across the world--besides Afghanistan, we can  also think of the IMF and Argentina, just to cite the latest victim  of US "generosity"--is not the way to go, no matter what the reason.  We Americans cannot expect to live in peace and security when others  cannot do so, and I think that is the larger politics of 9/11. I  don't think we should feel guilty about living at the standard of  living that we do, we but do have to decide whether we defend this  standard of living against others, or if we work to achieve a  standard of living for all of us throughout the world that is  economically and ecologically sustainable when achieved by everyone.

I think an approach on this basis will give us all much more  security, peace and justice than supporting Bush and the Empire's war  on Afghanistan.

Kim Scipes

USMC, 1969-1973

[ Home ] [ Up ]