This is still the Pynchon list, isn't it?

[Otto]

Toby G Levy:
>
> And to the guy who wrote "You don't mean the last sentence as you've said
> it? It's killing every discussion."
>

I was only referring to "This is a disgusting truth that is so evident it
does not even have to be researched." As someone who tries to think
postmodern I don't accept formulations like that serving only some
logocentric ideology.

>
> My last sentence was that Pynchon
> would never agree with Bush supporters, and yes I think there is ample
> evidence in his novels to state that Pynchon feels that war is a cynical
> means of the those in power to extend their own control.
>

There has been some discusion on this between Terrance and Doug, and I admit
that I'm not sure to what extent we may apply things being said there to the
actual political situation.

>
> And the only reason Bush showed restraint is because he didn't have a
> clue where to attack.
>

As I perceived it from over here there has been a lot of discussion, a lot
of negotiation and the deployment of military before an "action" could take
place. Several counties had to be convinced that OBL/Al Kaida and the
Taliban are responsible. Several critics (including myself) had to be
convinced that no action would have been the greatest danger at all. I'm
following my foreign minister in this.

>
> Declaring "war" on terrorism is the same as declaring "war" on drugs or
> inflation.  You do not use the army. You use anti-crime techniques.  We
> need better ways to identify and remove the antisocial elements from
> society, but we do not need to bomb women and children of foreign
> countries to do this.  And if you believe the reports on the accuracy of
> our bombs, that ALWAYS hit their targets, I respectfully disagree. I do
> not believe these reports.
>

In another life I've been a civil servant in the department of war pensions
and have gone through several thousand files of war victims, soldiers and
civilians, from the 1870/71 French-German war to WW-2. Of course I don't buy
military propaganda too. 80% of every military planning still goes wrong. On
the other hand I don't believe that the guys who have fired their rocket
into that village are very happy or celebrating it as a victory. And the
fact remains that it was a mislead one. Morally there's a big difference
between this and a terrorist act, even if it doesn't make a difference for
the victims.

>
> And you cannot judge the acceptability of military action by the size of
> demonstrations.  What would it take to get you to demonstrate?  Writing a
> message to a internet list is one thing; going out on the street and
> risking injury is another.  And public opinion polls are ridiculous for
> lots of reasons.  I don't have time to get into that.
>
> Toby
>

1. But in countries with a high "culture" of demonstrations where easily
200.000 get on the road even under an repressive government like in Pakistan
the recent numbers are indeed significantly small. Even in cities close to
the Afghan border with several hundred thousand Afghan refugees there were
rarely more than 30.000 demonstrators. This can hardly be called a mass
movement. I guess most of the 140 million Pakistani share the view of their
leading general that there was no choice but a great chance instead for
their country, in his view maybe to play a major role in world policies, in
their view maybe even delivering a chance to get closer to democracy, get
rid of these military and/or religious rulers at all.

2. If they would force me to deliver my fingerprints in order to fight
terrorism.

3. In the end elections are nothing but public opinion polls on a large
scale. So you seem to speak against our political system in general. I admit
that I'm still hooked on that Churchill-statement on democracy. It's the
only way where I could openly criticise things which were going wrong, it's
the only political idea that (still theoretically, I admit, but there is
progress) has peaceful coexistence, not defeating the enemy as a basic
assumption. Therefor I can believe Mr. Bush that Afghanistan isn't America's
enemy and the best way to help the Afghan people before the winter is to get
the Taliban out of power as soon as possible.

But even if some members of the peace movement or some pacifists are going
very far in their condemnation it should not be forgotten that they are
still necessary elements in a democratic variety of opinions. In the line of
this (but in the direction of the other side of the political spectrum) I
consider even some of Mr. Bush's "strong words" as necessary to avoid a
bigger outbreak of American nationalism. There are people who obviously need
this kind of speech, but there still is a difference between Realpolitik and
propaganda.

Otto