Back a few months before the Sandinistas took power I had an informal debate with a poli sci professor at ISU over Nicaragua. (He called himself, for reasons I never understood, a "marxist-leninist" and had been to Nicaragua, written articles on it, etc.) His position was that Nicaragua (after the earthquake etc) was in such terrible shape that the only path to recovery was through u.s. aid. He claimed that my argument for non-intervention was too simple. I had the same argument locally in respect to the First Gulf War. I argued the same locally in reference to the very first u.s. interventions in Yugoslavia. I argued the same later in respect to Clinton's war over Kosovo. Ditto East Timor. Ditto Afghanistan. (Many leftists actively supported that war crime, and even when its criminality became obvious to everyone many leftists kept up the refrain, "We've got to repair the damage we did before we leave.") Ditto the invasion of Iraq. (On another list some wiseass queried in response to my argument for "Out Now" "Will it get the electricity turned on?" I wonder what the power situation is in Iraq today?)
Every time there is a crisis somewhere leftists who recognize complexity delude themselves into thinking their advice will be implemented by the powers in Washington. Every time it turns out that the "too simple" argument was an accurate predi tion of what u.s. intervention would create. Carrol Carrol Cox wrote: > > Michael Perelman wrote: > > > > Darfur is probably worse than Afghanistan already. The groups that > > were fighting against the government have fallen out; one is already > > switched sides to the government. > > > > Probably none of us understand what is going on, but no simple answers > > exist, I am sure. > > Any complex answer will be implemented by the Bush administration. So > arguing that there is no "simple answer" in a discussion among leftists > is in effect arguing for the Bush administration to carry out whatever > policy it wishes there. Another way to put it is that we are not high > level technical advisors to the Department of Defense, and only such > advisors can urge a complex answer and have any anticipation of having > that answer implemented. > > I'm still assuming that our voice makes no difference either way, but > the _only_ way we could have any inflluence is through (what is > impossible now) marshalling a huge chorus chanting NO INTERVENTION. > Anything else we say will _sound_ like (regardless of our intentions) > "Go it Bush." > > Carrol
