> Let's not try to make the situation any more complicated
>than it is, Ok? If Foucault were alive today, he would be
>screaming at the top of his lungs against Milosevic,
>against fascism and genocide.
No. It's not OK. Why-oh-why do we have to see things as an either/or: we
do nothing or we do what we're doing. I simply can't beleive how many
people are falling for this. It's not a case of making Milosevic a
universal enemy, but one of understanding the rationality behind his
atrocious acts, and providing a counter balance, morally, ethically,
practically. It's Milosevic, not the US who needs an "exit strategy"--a
phrase I abhor; it has absolutely no meaning in a dynamic situation. You
say that if Foucault were alive he'd be screaming. I have no doubt he
wouldn't be silent. I can tell you who is screaming, for as we know
Foucault is not alive: the pro-democracy movements and anti-Milosevic
factions within Yugoslavia. Their message, almost uniformly, is "STOP THE
BOMBING, please, please stop".
>Foucault was never concerned with keeping his own ethical
>hymen intacted. He was concerned with getting things done.
this is true. But how can we say that the forced exodus of 315,000 people
and the displacement within Kosovo itself of 300,000 more (even more worry
as they have, by definition of being "internally displaced", no refugee
status--with the possibility of humanitarian assistence that goes with that
status) in the last 10 days alone is unrelated to NATOs policy of bombing?
I'll tell you what I think: despite the media hype about genocide,
humanitarian crisis, etc., NATO is complicit with Milosevic. He'll back
down but his power base has been _intensely_ strengthened. Added to which,
under the cover of shelling in Belgrade, his security and special police
forces have systematically emptied Kosovo out of ethnic Albanians. In
short, I think the West has sold out the UCK. They're helping Milosevic
with what is essentially a police problem. He's a classic state builder:
they have that in common with him. He's a simple-minded one, and it is
that lesson--if any--the West would teach him. Biopower is more effective
than genocide, but if the latter has to be done, let it be done quickly,
for you're upsetting everyone's general stability. I think air strikes
have been purposely used to block the possibility of actually defending the
Kosovars by sending in ground troops. We'll see if I'm wrong if they do
indeed send in ground troops in a declared war. Then I'll say I was
misguided--which is my right. This is a difficult truth we're pursuing;
not at all uncomplicated, as you suggest. We must be attentive to the
present, never end our own wars against our own assumptions. Then perhaps
we'd have something to say.
>Hold your nose and do it people. Foucault would.
I disagree.
>Do to Serbia what Rome did to Carthage.
So why don't you go there? I'm sure the UCK needs all the help it can get.
You go and fire the bullets. I can't beleive you can say such things so
easily--and here of all places.
>"But NATO, like the Good Lord, cherishs the prodigal."
apologies for the language--there's nothing else i can say to this (I know
these are not your words), but that is f*cking bullshit.
p.s., was this post sent with heavy irony that I'm just failing to pick
up, being too caught with events?
best wishes/sincerely,
______________________________________________
Ian R. Douglas | Watson Institute for International Studies
Brown University, Box 1831, Providence, RI 02912 USA
tel: 401 863-2420 fax: 401 863-2192
"Foucault's death was something terrible, not only
because Foucault died, but because France lost a very
important presence who caused imbeciles to hesitate to
speak out, knowing that Foucault was there to respond."
- Gilles Deleuze, 1985
http://www.powerfoundation.org
>than it is, Ok? If Foucault were alive today, he would be
>screaming at the top of his lungs against Milosevic,
>against fascism and genocide.
No. It's not OK. Why-oh-why do we have to see things as an either/or: we
do nothing or we do what we're doing. I simply can't beleive how many
people are falling for this. It's not a case of making Milosevic a
universal enemy, but one of understanding the rationality behind his
atrocious acts, and providing a counter balance, morally, ethically,
practically. It's Milosevic, not the US who needs an "exit strategy"--a
phrase I abhor; it has absolutely no meaning in a dynamic situation. You
say that if Foucault were alive he'd be screaming. I have no doubt he
wouldn't be silent. I can tell you who is screaming, for as we know
Foucault is not alive: the pro-democracy movements and anti-Milosevic
factions within Yugoslavia. Their message, almost uniformly, is "STOP THE
BOMBING, please, please stop".
>Foucault was never concerned with keeping his own ethical
>hymen intacted. He was concerned with getting things done.
this is true. But how can we say that the forced exodus of 315,000 people
and the displacement within Kosovo itself of 300,000 more (even more worry
as they have, by definition of being "internally displaced", no refugee
status--with the possibility of humanitarian assistence that goes with that
status) in the last 10 days alone is unrelated to NATOs policy of bombing?
I'll tell you what I think: despite the media hype about genocide,
humanitarian crisis, etc., NATO is complicit with Milosevic. He'll back
down but his power base has been _intensely_ strengthened. Added to which,
under the cover of shelling in Belgrade, his security and special police
forces have systematically emptied Kosovo out of ethnic Albanians. In
short, I think the West has sold out the UCK. They're helping Milosevic
with what is essentially a police problem. He's a classic state builder:
they have that in common with him. He's a simple-minded one, and it is
that lesson--if any--the West would teach him. Biopower is more effective
than genocide, but if the latter has to be done, let it be done quickly,
for you're upsetting everyone's general stability. I think air strikes
have been purposely used to block the possibility of actually defending the
Kosovars by sending in ground troops. We'll see if I'm wrong if they do
indeed send in ground troops in a declared war. Then I'll say I was
misguided--which is my right. This is a difficult truth we're pursuing;
not at all uncomplicated, as you suggest. We must be attentive to the
present, never end our own wars against our own assumptions. Then perhaps
we'd have something to say.
>Hold your nose and do it people. Foucault would.
I disagree.
>Do to Serbia what Rome did to Carthage.
So why don't you go there? I'm sure the UCK needs all the help it can get.
You go and fire the bullets. I can't beleive you can say such things so
easily--and here of all places.
>"But NATO, like the Good Lord, cherishs the prodigal."
apologies for the language--there's nothing else i can say to this (I know
these are not your words), but that is f*cking bullshit.
p.s., was this post sent with heavy irony that I'm just failing to pick
up, being too caught with events?
best wishes/sincerely,
______________________________________________
Ian R. Douglas | Watson Institute for International Studies
Brown University, Box 1831, Providence, RI 02912 USA
tel: 401 863-2420 fax: 401 863-2192
"Foucault's death was something terrible, not only
because Foucault died, but because France lost a very
important presence who caused imbeciles to hesitate to
speak out, knowing that Foucault was there to respond."
- Gilles Deleuze, 1985
http://www.powerfoundation.org