It seems to me that the NATO action in Kosovo stands to fragment the left in a
profound way. The left, so used to opposing global military theatrics (for
good reasons), is faced with what appears a humanitarian war, supposedly a
contradition in terms. I think the crisis has provided some rather silly
improvisations on the part of leftist analysis in an effort to maintain its
opposition to military operations.
For example, the bombing of a police center and the hunting down of all
policing apparatus is hardly helping with internal policing matters. This
analysis betrays an orthodoxy to leftist skepticism, and a willingness to
search out the concealed agenda, but it is, I think, silly.
Why not just say, as Ian does, that this situation is really not so
complicated, that very occassionally the good guys are really more or less
good (at least as far as immediate decision making goes), and that all of our
penetrating critique is not really very useful, at least not on this issue.
The stubborn reluctance to accept either/or dilemmas, and the insistence that
there are always deeper, more sinister processes at work is an orthodoxy that
sometimes has to be dispensed with. sometimes its important to argue
pragmatism over deconstruction.
sb
Ian Robert Douglas wrote:
> > 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
--
____________________________
Sam Binkley
Department of Sociology, New School University
65 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003
Address: PO Box 20202, New York, NY 10009
phone: (212) 420 9425 web: http://www.erols.com/sbinkley/
profound way. The left, so used to opposing global military theatrics (for
good reasons), is faced with what appears a humanitarian war, supposedly a
contradition in terms. I think the crisis has provided some rather silly
improvisations on the part of leftist analysis in an effort to maintain its
opposition to military operations.
For example, the bombing of a police center and the hunting down of all
policing apparatus is hardly helping with internal policing matters. This
analysis betrays an orthodoxy to leftist skepticism, and a willingness to
search out the concealed agenda, but it is, I think, silly.
Why not just say, as Ian does, that this situation is really not so
complicated, that very occassionally the good guys are really more or less
good (at least as far as immediate decision making goes), and that all of our
penetrating critique is not really very useful, at least not on this issue.
The stubborn reluctance to accept either/or dilemmas, and the insistence that
there are always deeper, more sinister processes at work is an orthodoxy that
sometimes has to be dispensed with. sometimes its important to argue
pragmatism over deconstruction.
sb
Ian Robert Douglas wrote:
> > 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
--
____________________________
Sam Binkley
Department of Sociology, New School University
65 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003
Address: PO Box 20202, New York, NY 10009
phone: (212) 420 9425 web: http://www.erols.com/sbinkley/