pynchon-l-digest V2 #2170

[The Great Quail]

Doug,

>Is the
>current war primarily motivated by corporations that stand to profit?
>Probably not primarily, but certainly the possibility for profits will
>motivate these corporations to support policies that let them sell goods
>and services to governments on all sides of the conflict; Pynchon lays out
>the dynamics pretty clearly in GR,

I am not disagreeing with you, but as I have said, I do not ascribe 
as much importance to it as a motivational goad.

>Is the current war motivated primarily by a macho
>need for revenge?

I don't think "revenge" is necessarily macho; but I would be hard 
pressed to say that there isn't an element of revenge here. I think 
that's natural, given the fact we were attacked so harshly. It just 
cannot be allowed to be the primary factor, nor can it be allowed to 
spill over emotionally and overwhelm strategy.

>explaining his thought processes, which did
>in large part reflect the knee-jerk,
>they-hurt-us-we'll-bomb-them-back-to-the-Stone-Age response

I do not agree with your implication, which has too many echoes of 
carpet-bombing and lack of care regarding targets. But of course, we 
will try to destroy the enemy, and so we bomb their camps, power 
stations, broadcast stations, units, airfields and etc. as a 
precursor to a ground-based assault. As a person with a military 
background, would you have an alternate military strategy?

>Is this war happening in part because the U.S. helped to
>create a highly trained terrorist army then turned its back and continued
>to piss in their back yard -- certainly, but that's not the only reason.

Man, I hear you on that one! I am sick of the US supporting violent 
elements and then leaving them to their own devices. I really hope 
this increases a general awareness of that, and maybe leads to a 
shift in policy.

>And so on. Complex situation, indeed.

Yes, it is.

>I don't expect I need to repeat all of the
>positives of U.S. foreign policy, assuming that people know what they are.
>I'm all for a balanced view that takes into account both positives and
>negatives.

I can see your point, but by only espousing the negative, over and 
over again, it becomes hard to believe that you have a balanced 
opinion.

>You would go too far the other direction, I guess, seeing the
>way you tried to ridicule that John Pilger article I passed along the other
>day --

I think that article is ludicrous, and un-balanced, and I honestly 
think it's flaws are self-evident. The flaws lie less in a difference 
of opinion or even interpretation, but in gross distortion and sloppy 
thinking. I can see maybe I should respond more to that article, but 
it seems like such dreck -- the same as the Horowitz piece is from 
"the other side." His view of Western imperialism overlooks centuries 
and centuries of Islamic and Middle eastern history, and his 
willingness to believe bin Laden at face value shows a naivete that 
can only spring from a hatred of his own cultural background. It's 
like Pilger has no ability to have a balanced viewpoint; he's like a 
leftist Jerry Falwell to me. At least Chomsky is intelligent and more 
open-minded.

>the only problem is, that negative history of U.S. foreign affairs
>that Pilger offered is factually true, and  many students of history would
>agree with Pilger's interpretation of those facts, seeing  the U.S., in the
>current war, engaged in what amounts to  an extension of imperialism,
>albeit modified in the current postcolonial situation.

I have already expressed why I disagree with that.

>Selectively, of course.  The US continues to turn a blind eye to terrorist
>elements of governments the US supports.  The paramilitary right wing
>terrorists in Colombia, for example; there are more that could be mentioned.

Again, I hear you! And I agree -- I believe I even said, to either 
you or Barbara, that we are really fighting terrorists that are in 
our own national interests. And I think we open ourselves up to gross 
hypocrisy by not admitting so.

>>(2) increasing our capitalist coffers,
>
>You seem to agree after all that profit is a motivating factor for this
>war. Not the only factor, but an important one (one of  four you mention).

Yes, it is an important factor, but not, I believe, the motivating 
one in this case. I wrote it down because I believe that we will 
eventually profit from a more stable Afghanistan, and that there are 
certainly oil interests in the mix. Of course, our interests in the 
entire region can be ultimately traced back to oil, in which case it 
may be seen as a "motivating" factor.

>Yes, I've mentioned this as a motivating factor.  No oil -- i.e., no
>commercial benefit for the U.S. -- and, as you say, the U.S. wouldn't care
>about what happens over there, wouldn't care what kind of ideology or
>government dominates, wouldn't care about the human rights situation (hence
>the U.S. letting the Rwanda genocide proceed, in a recent example).

I couldn't agree with you more.

>agree with you on this point. It makes a mockery, of course, of Bush's
>rhetoric about freedom and democracy and all the rest that we're supposed
>to be fighting for -- as it did in the Gulf war when the U.S. fought to
>protect seriously repressive regimes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

I have a different view on it. I think that Bush I used "democracy" 
and so on as window-dressing for the real reason, as everyone on 
earth knows, which was oil. I understood the diplomatic and 
propagandistic need to do that, though it fills me with distaste and 
even anger. I think if you are going to fight a war for oil, say so 
to the public, and explain to them that our lifestyle demands it. 
Place the blame on us as a whole, our entire country, so we all know 
the cost of our Empire. Not that Saddam is a good guy by any means. 
Conservatively speaking, when you can wage a war that (1) in in the 
national interest, and (2) does some "good" as well, you will have 
numerous justifications. I am upset that Bush I ignored the "national 
interest" part, and by doing so, insulted the intelligence of a 
nation.

I do not think that Bush II is making a mockery about freedom, 
however, because unlike you, I see this war as more to do with 
reducing a real threat than to do with protecting oil.  So the 
propaganda is more digestible to me.

>And
>here's another parallel with Vietnam -- the U.S. claimed to be fighting for
>freedom and democracy, yet kept in place a murderous, corrupt regime that
>proved unable to win and keep the confidence of the people it sought to
>govern.

Well, that seems like a surface parallel. The axis of Freedom and 
Democracy against Communism is different that the axis of Freedom and 
Democracy against an aggressive Jihad.

>  >and (4) promoting our modern,
>>democratic capitalist way of life. None of these directly involves
>>colonization, annexation, and so on.
>
>Coca Colonization is what some folks called it back in the 60s.

Well, I think that's a bit disingenuous, and certainly overlooks the 
real horror of many real colonization situations. That's not to say 
that advanced capitalism does not have a coercive side; but it's not 
the equivalent of moving in, taking over a country, displacing the 
people and robbing the resources.

--Quail