>From: Frederick Pollack <[log in to unmask]>
>The point is that powerful
>institutions do good only when the good is in their interest. If you
>want to make them more moral you have to confront them with a greater
>power committed to good. Bin Laden, as I said in my letter, is not that
>power. He does not represent the oppressed and exploited of the world;
>he has his own agenda.
Sure, he has his own agenda. And? The point isn't that Osama is a saint,
or even a democrat. The point is that he commands popularity, loyalty and
commitment because of the broader context in which he operates. If the
context changes, his ability to wield power diminishes. And the context is
not just his arms dumps in Kandahar, but US policy, material conditions, the
mosque as the only safe space for dissent in West Asia etc etc etc.
Hitler too did not "represent" the wretched of the earth, and had his own
agenda, but he wouldn't have been able to succeed in imposing his agenda
without the context of the Versailles Treaty, the Depression etc etc. etc.
>Someone will pay, in blood and pain, for what has been done to innocent
>American civilians. That is a given.
Oh, I can give more detail than that: it will be more than one someone,
they won't be white, and almost if not all of them will have nothing at all
to do with the bombing.
Raymond Aron, when he was
>becoming disillusioned with the left, would listen to one of his friends
>rant about the bourgeoisie, international capital, the horrible
>Americans etc., then suddenly say, "Tell me - what would you like
>monsieur le ministre (of whatever) to do at this moment?" And they never
>had an answer.
Uh-huh. <yawn> Frankly, I had that very conversation on Sunday night, and
I wa speaking to someone who advises both the State Department and the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|