Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 01:46:15 -0500
Subject: Re: HAB: The Road to Damascus


Is all this to suggest that Bush's war threats--short of carrying them 
out--may actually be beneficial in forcing out of Saddam Hussein the 
objectively needed information about the real weapons of mass destruction 
at his disposal, and if he is then strong-armed into disposing of those, 
then war can be averted and hence the threat of war will have helped to 
prevent aggression on Iraq'as part?  You are making a linkage between 
strategic action (warmongering) and communicative action (fact-finding), so 
it seems.  Yet I think your premises are faulty.  Not that Hussein isn't a 
scumbag--he was an ally of the US after all and we loved him as long as he 
developed no ambitions of his own--but who is a threat to whom, in actual 
fact?  We know Hussein used the nasty weapons we supplied him with against 
Iran.  What reason is there to believe he is a threat to anyone else at 
this moment?  As far as his reluctance or duplicity in revealing his 
arsenal, well, think about this: if you knew someone was hell-bent on 
invading you and getting rid of your ass and already proved his 
ruthlessless in having bombed your people back to the stone age and 
committed genocide against your people for over a decade, is it 
possible--nice guy or ruthless dictator that you may be--that you might be 
a little reluctant to reveal all your weapons and their whereabouts?

Is the "rationality" behind Baby Bush's strong-arm tactics really to 
prevent a possible attack on the US by Iraq, or is this just a front for 
Bush's program of world conquest, which begins with oil?  Is this in fact a 
rational goal?  Few people think it is, I surmise, across a broad political 
spectrum?

Whose objective is communicative action, BTW?

At 05:01 AM 1/27/2003 +0000, matthew piscioneri wrote:

>Dear List,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = 
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>
>  The following is an exercise in rendering complete my intellectual 
> bewilderment. The question is: Will anybody buy it?
>
>Mindful of trying to avoid the wrath of Ralph by not straying TOO far from 
>the purpose of this Habermas List I want to offer the following analysis 
>of the present state of play in the U.S/U.K/U.N/Iraq situation. It is an 
>analysis which takes its lead from what I have earlier termed the positive 
>dialectics at the core of Jurgen Habermass theory of communicative 
>rationality and action.
>
>Put simply, in contrast to Adornos negative dialectics which terminates 
>the construction of forward looking prescriptive agendas, Habermass 
>positive dialectics based on his insistence that in critical social 
>discourse there can be no appeal to final reasons encourages an open-ended 
>futurity in which the validity of the claims raised by the speech acts 
>that constitute the sort of dialogue currently taking place re-Iraq remain 
>always open to re-assessment and re-negotiation. As such even the Allied 
>threats of war take their place within the wider framework of the 
>communicative action undertaken by the Security Council as an 
>always/already work-in-progress.
>
>IMO, this is the key point. Once the Bush Administrations threat of war is 
>understood within the overall framework of the Security Councils 
>resolution then a degree of commendable rationality to Bushs and Blairs 
>action begins to emerge.
>
>  Fact 1: War has not yet been engaged.
>
>Fact 2: Weapons inspectors have been allowed the allotted time to inspect 
>Iraqs military capability.
>
>Fact 3: Other than a few dud warheads and documents no smoking gun has 
>been found.
>
>
>In effect barring the discovery of WOMDs in Iraq, or the Allies attacking 
>Iraq in the next 48 hours then the overt objectives of the U.N and the 
>Allies has been achieved. Congratulations George W. Stage One of the 
>communicative action of the Security Council has been facilitated. What 
>happens next is probably more important. Perhaps the Security Council 
>will/should insist on an ongoing program of weapons inspection.
>
>  Interestingly, Bushs and Blairs threat of war (more usually associated 
> with strategic action) has been a necessary complement to the U.Ns role 
> [ye olde good cop/bad cop routine]. To return briefly to Habermas; this 
> all picks up themes in Agnes Hellers essay Habermas and Marxism in the 
> Held and Thompson anthology where Heller argues that strike actions and 
> acts of violent disobedience are sometimes required to achieve the 
> objectives of communicative actions. In many ways Bushs and Blairs 
> threats of war against Iraq which I have no doubt they are prepared to 
> see through have ensured the communicative action of the Security Council 
> has been seen through with the final report of the weapons inspectors due 
> about now.
>
>  Now, what about this turn of events: the way is open for Bush and Blair 
> along with Kofi to take the accolades whilst France, Germany, China and 
> Russia can continue to count the blood money gained from their evil trade 
> with Saddam Hussein ;-).
>
>  Well, thats how it looks to me at this stage.
>
>Peace is a beautiful thing.
>
>MattP.



     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---