At 05:46 PM 9/13/01 +0300, you wrote:
>Jim
>
>If you read what you just wrote I think you end up answering your
>initial question. Winning a war in Afghanistan would be easy, true, but
>it's the occupation that will sap the energy, as will the inevitable
>police actions that must be taken as a direct consequence of any such
>effort.
that's what I said in a separate missive.
>Mark's points re the tinder box that is the Middle East are
>unimpeachable, and for the US, of all actors, to weigh in full tilt is
>to invite unmitigated disaster. Yet that is what is quite likely to
>happen, given the truly mindless activity going on at the head of the US
>state apparatus. Rumsfeld's performance yesterday was the clearest
>signal of where the priorities of the Executive lie. Together with the
>impromptu singalong on Capitol Hill, and the cheerleading of the
>mainstream media, the task of stopping this drift to a war of mindless
>retribution becomes ever more daunting. I think it's already
>irreversible
maybe. We'll see.
>-- just like the decline and fall of the USA.
>
>If you haven't already had a look, have a read of Chalmers Johnson's
>"Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire" (Metropolitan
>Books, 2000). I think I've paraphrased enough of it already on PEN-L
>over the last few months, but, if you're interested, I can forward a
>more extensive review offlist.
I'm familiar with Johnson's work. I don't think any historical process is
irreversible.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
