From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed Dec 22 2004 - 13:13:34 GMT
Hi MSH, Keith, all,
> As for Sam's Corleone analogy, I was LOL because it's obvious he's
> been reading that nogoodnik Chomsky.
Indeed I have, he's very interesting (as I expected).
> In fact, the mafioso analogy
> very closely parallels the real world situation. The Don acts and,
> yes, a shopkeeper realizes some benefit (we'll forget about the other
> shops and citizens caught in the crossfire); but, the question is, do
> we really want to live in a world run by Don Corleone? Think of
> DMB's Sopranos story: it's very creepy, and telling, to realize
> that mafia types highly admire the USG's handling of foreign affairs.
That's why I thought it was a useful analogy - there's no dispute that Corleone is a mafioso and as
such represents something that needs to be overcome; it's not the world we want to live in. But it
is the world that we've got at present, and I think that the shopkeeper does gain benefit from
'protection'. (In the analogy, local law enforcement is powerless, just as IL is powerless today -
just ask the people who live in Darfur)
Let's push this a bit more. In my ZNet commentary this morning Robert Jensen writes: "The United
States has lost the war in Iraq, and that's a good thing." Would you (anyone) agree with that
sentiment?
The thing is, we've been mainly debating the build up to the war, and that's important, to try and
perceive what was the truth about the choices that were faced by Western leaders, and whether it was
right or not to invade. But the invasion having happened, is it really going to make the world a
better place if the US 'loses' in Iraq?
We were agreed that the rule of law is a good thing (domestically, even if we argue about the
international form), and we also agreed that the rule of law ultimately rested on the use of force
to overcome the biological level. If the US loses, then from where will come the establishment of
the rule of law in Iraq? And if there is no rule of law, who is going to benefit from it? Surely
what is necessary is for the rule of law to be established, and a government in Iraq set up and
embedded in power. I can't see how the US 'losing' will enable that to happen.
And I also ponder the psychology of Al-Qaeda (what little I know about it) in that they fought a
long war against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and eventually overcame them. That is their
'model' for their struggle, and if they do perceive that they have overcome the United States in
Iraq, will that not only embolden them, strengthen them, make it more likely that their ranks will
swell - making it much more likely that they will carry their struggle against the US further than
they have until now.
Perhaps the point is that (to return to the topic of the thread) there must be an overarching
authority, however bad and mafioso-like, if the alternative is anarchy. As I understand it, you're
saying that the US acting outside IL represents a falling away from the rule of law towards anarchy.
Whereas I suspect that it's exactly the opposite (little though the present USG might appreciate
it).
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 22 2004 - 13:15:43 GMT