From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 10:09:49 MST
What is the emotional reaction of those protesting the war
to American setbacks in the field?
In the last few days, there have been Coalition losses that
have made headlines. Unexpected stratagems performed by the
Iraqis have resulted in American and U.K. tactical setbacks
(though not strategic ones so far as I can tell).
Now what is the truth about the way that this news is internally
digested by the anti-war activists? The rational response would
be that since a Coalition victory is probably inevitable, such
setbacks only needlessly cost lives and prolong the war.
However, human beings are seldom so ethereally rational, and
nature has built into human beings emotions for the express
purpose of short-circuiting "hyper-rational" responses.
I conjecture that reports of American setbacks are received
with gratification by most war protesters. After all,
for those who see George Bush as a greater threat and a
greater enemy than Saddam Hussein, such a reaction would
be practically inevitable. Wouldn't it?
I have no doubts that on this forum a few people do achieve
the desirable state that lies between normal human functioning
on the one hand and hyper-rationality on the other, that is,
the highly desired but seldom achieved intermediate state of
keeping one's emotions quite subdued in the background and
allowing oneself to be deeply influenced by rational thinking
and rational memes---yet at the same time not being dominated
by hyper-rational or other-worldly detachment.
Yet even on this list we will find, were they to be honest
and candid about it, that for many the reports of Coalition
setbacks create a positive emotional affect. That the majority
of those marching in the streets are greatly encouraged, almost
to the extent of experiencing sensations of relief or joy,
I have little reason to doubt.
It was in the Vietnam war, after all, as many Vietnamese
Communists today readily admit, that a mutual aid exchange
arose between the American war protesters and the North
Vietnamese, and the military successes of the latter were
unabashedly cheered by the former. Each would rejoice and
be encouraged by the successes of the other. I think it
likely that we are seeing much the same today.
Because ultimately, our hearts determine the course of our
logical thinking in most of us to a fully conclusive degree.
In other words, it usually comes down to whose side you're on!
I don't really see any difference between American U.S. war
protesters---after hostilities have actually begun---and
traitors. Nor do I see any realistic difference between
war protesters in other nations---who NEVER protest the
activities or atrocities committed by governments other
than the U.S.---and those who are strict, formal, complete,
and declared enemies of the United States, the United Kingdom,
and their allies.
There happens to be a war going on, and you've already taken
sides, whoever you are, so admit it. You can't be blamed for
it. It's the way we are.
It was obvious to all after the U.S. and U.K. had over 200,000
troops in the region, that an invasion was going to occur unless
there were dramatic developments in Baghdad, e.g., an abdication.
Therefore, the most logical (or hyper-rational) course for activists
genuinely wishing war to be avoided would have been to take to the
streets to protest the Iraqi regime and to call for Saddam Hussein
to step down. It's equally obvious how discouraging to Saddam
Hussein such protests would have been, and how his position
would have been weakened.
Instead, of course, his regime was buoyed by the same hopes that
encouraged and helped the North Vietnamese persevere against the
U.S. in the Vietnam War. Today's war protesters, just like their
antecedents 30 years ago, are doing and will do everything that
they can possibly think of to encourage Saddam Hussein and to
cheer for the Iraqi army, decorum permitting.
Any lengthening of the war will be accompanied by positive
emotions by those who are against the Coalition, not only
for the political damage that they calculate accrues to the Bush
regime, but also because it retards the success of the United
States, the United Kingdom, and their allies in general, and
promotes world-wide solidarity among the peoples resisting
the "imperialism" of those powers.
Is there a time when you've seen huge flocks of activists
critical of anything besides American policy? There are
NEVER protests, except (directly or indirectly) to object
to a U.S. policy. This proves what the agenda is.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 10:10:18 MST