Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:18:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Thomas Seay <entheogens-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: AUT: Criticism of "No Blood For War"


I am very happy to see all the protests that went on
today around the world. Though I appreciate the spirit
of peace in which it is raised, I must admit that I
find problematic the slogan, "No Blood for oil", which
seems to have showed up on banners throughout the
world.

We know that the US government has learned the lessons
from the Vietnam war:
(1) Get the war over quickly
(2) Do so in a manner that as few American soldiers
die as possible
(3) Do so in a manner to reduce as much as possible
the civilian casualties in the country being invaded.

Historically in America, the anti-war movement dies
when the bombs stop being dropped.  All of the
momentum that has been building up could suddenly
evaporate.

I don^Òt know how much time it will take to wage this
war or how much loss of life will be brought about as
a result. However, I find problematic and even a bit
macabre that the Left pins its hopes on building a
movement against the war under the assumption that a
lot of blood will be spilled (when I say a lot, I mean
on the level of Vietnam), that the war will last a
long time and even that this war is directly about
oil.

What if there is relatively little loss of life and
what if it isn't about war?  I think that essay by
Wallerstein http://fbc.binghamton.edu/107en.htm makes
a strong case that the war may not be about oil.  In
such a case, "No blood for oil" turns into an empty
cliché to be indexed with other conspiracy theories.  

What will happen once the bombs stop dropping and the
television sets of America are beamed pictures of the
American ^Óliberators^Ô bringing food and medicines to
the suffering Iraquis, or see American and British
soldiers handing out chocolates to smiling Iraqi
children?  Will the peace movement at its current
level be credible in the light of such a spectacle?

Another problem that may not be explicit in this
slogan is the recent celebration of the Franco-German
plan.  From a tactical point of view, I, of course
welcomed the ^Ócrisis^Ô within NATO.  It may have bought
us more time to organize against the war, but we
should have no illusions about these countries.  Yet,
I have seen emails circulating the globe whose authors
exclaim ^ÓVive La France!^Ô  Do any of these people
actually count Jacques Chirac as a patron of peace?

^ÓOld Europe^Ô and the entire Security Council at the UN
share with Bush a disregard for national boundaries
and all believe that, in the interest of human rights,
security and world peace, Iraq must be policed.  And
THAT is the basis of the feud over Iraq:  how do we
police Iraq, or better, how are we to police the
world?  In other words, this is not the ole-time
imperialist rivalry that dusty Trotskyites imagine. 
It is a disagreement over protocol within Empire (I
use the term ^ÓEmpire^Ô to designate the current world
order as described by Hardt and Negri in their book by
that name.).  It is not a conflict between American,
German, French and Chinese capital, it is a moment of
decision for GLOBAL CAPITAL.

We should not make the mistake of seeking protection
within the porous walls of this or that nation-state. 
In a post-colonial world there is no shelter from
global capital.  In place of the slogan ^ÓNo blood for
war^Ô, I suggest ^ÓNo Imperial Police Force^Ô.

-Thomas


====<<Be like me!  The Primal Mother, eternally creative, eternally impelling into life,
    eternally drawing satisfaction from the ceaseless flux of phenomena.>>
    -Nietzsche, "The Birth of Tragedy"

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---