Uh, the nineteen terrorister’s of the 9-11-01 terrorist attacks included fifteen SAUDI ARABIANS among them . Uh, that kinda indicates
that the regular folks of SAUDI ARABIA are very, very, very , very, very angry at American citizens, and anyone on American soil . Uh, why’s folks in Washington D. C. so slow
to grasp that series of facts ?

Why doesn’t the American public tell the folks in Washington D.C. to WAKE UP ?

War’s a racket, Stan . Marx is NOT likely to pilot two planes ( or even one ) into tall buildings .

Please , everyone, consider what you are keeping in place .

Timothy R. Anderson, 11 / 30 / 06

The answer to the last question is, imo, yes.

The conventional military is also predicated on exteme standardization, and officer supervisors often have outrageously arbitrary power. Oddly enough, enlisted people, if they know the bureaucratic heiroglyphics, can carve out a less arbitrary space than officers (or even less arbitrary than, say, IBM). But then they depend on NCOs to get the practical day to day stuff done, so they have to give us a lot more latitude (and of course hang us when things go wrong).

I may start reading some Kolko, aside from his short pieces.

One more oughta on the list.

Kolko is quite critical of the history of the 20th Left and particularly socialist parties becaue of their tradional subserivence to Moscow. He saw the Soviet Union as an essentially conservative force throughout the cold war, working to restrain local CPs. But he is equally critical of those local CPs for adhering to the Soviet line.

In the post cold war period I think he is ‘cranky’ about a generalized failure of imagination on the left.

I think this is part of a broader critique of the traditional rigidity of M-L. But if you think he is critical of the left, look at what he says about the right, and particulary war planners.

I haven’t (yet) read his After Socialism where he presents his most recent and most detailed critique of the left, but his Century of War (1994), is pretty comprehensive in its critique of both right and left.

Roots of American Foriegn Poicy (1969) is about $1.65 on half.com. 35 yrs later and it is still good reading.

Stan, I am curious if you agree with his assessment of the military as being perhaps the most conformist element of the state which is characterized by such a high degree of conformism. Is he arguing for a more autonomous military? Or is he just saying that if military leaders had more of spine, they’d be willing to tell political leaders that they are full of shit, doing everyone a big favor?

this is a very different argument than M. Hogan “A Cross of Iron” and other analyses of the military industrial complex (even C.W. Mills).

Is a military leadership with a spine a virutal impossibility given structure of the modern state, in which war planning is the purview of the McNamaras and rumsfelds? Do only the tommy Frankses, that is those who will confirm the delusions of the powerful, get anywhere near the top?

I’m going to be opening a thread on this soon, and I hope you’ll be there. My own critique of M-L is shaped signficantly by ecological issues.