Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!notes
From: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: back in the USSR - (nf)
Message-ID: <555@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Oct-83 14:04:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.555
Posted: Wed Oct 26 14:04:51 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Oct-83 22:34:23 EDT
Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group
Lines: 73

#R:tty3b:-23300:ucbesvax:7500041:000:3659
ucbesvax!turner    Oct 26 04:54:00 1983

Re: Mike Kelly's question ("Re: back in the USSR")

The constant emphasis on the lack of civil liberties in the USSR is in
part a red herring--by focusing attention on the enemy, any equivalent
faults of the U.S. are rhetorically shouldered aside.

There is a related reason, however--I think the conservatives get quite
a bit of ideological leverage out of it.  It is that the very lack of
due respect for human rights and tolerance of dissent makes the USSR
that much more formidable as an adversary in world affairs.

A good example is Soviet arms sales and personnel commitment to Syria.
As far as arms, we did much the same for the Shah.  But could the U.S.
have made a similar commitment in personnel, without large-scale civil
disobedience at home?  I doubt this.

As oppressive as the Shah was, I don't think that the American public
would have been very supportive of some things that Assad has done, like
saturation bombing of one of his own cities in response to a rebellion.
Yet this is just the kind of thing that the Russians are willing to
ignore--even support--and downplay in their own press.

(By contrast, we might look at Indonesia's invasion and virtual genocide
in East Timor, with substantial U.S. armaments.  Here, every effort was
made to cover up the incident, and the U.S. press was unusually complacent.
But it couldn't have continued had any attention been focused on it in the
national press.  It was just intolerably gross.)

Afghanistan is another fair example: many Russian troops have died there,
and the total troop commitment is comparable to ours in Vietnam.  Yet
Vietnam-level internal dissent is scarcely visible, and thus hardly a
factor in determining policy.  Even our Korean war had its domestic
political aspect--a surprising element of Nixon's "Checkers" speech is
the near-promise to "bring our boys home."

This whole line of thought is, however, self-bankrupting.  By vesting in
the executive branch of our country the war-making initiative of the
comparable levels of Soviet command, we are not going to gain anything.
This is simply adding a few layers of bricks to the wall between the
power of the presidency and the will of the electorate.  Another election
will reverse this effect.  In the interim, some mess will be made that
will give Soviet foreign policy more leverage, by virtue of the dis-
continuities of American policy.  The only way to maintain continuity
is to put the whole nation on a war-footing--suppressing dissent at home
and abroad, and constantly escalating the level of conflict.

This is where the conservative line leads us then: in the face of
Soviet intractibility, we must at least *act* like we are willing to
go to the brink (and beyond) of another world war.  We must demonstrate
a willingness to become what the Soviets already are.

That I can't accept.  We are *not* defending "freedom" and "unification"
in Lebanon (though I think that Reagan has been hoodwinked into believing
just that).  Else, why would we be supporting a government including of
the most divisive element: the Christian Phalange, an organization with
ideological roots in European fascism.

Nor are we defending "freedom" and "political pluralism" in Nicaragua
by funding the most vicious elements of the former regime to the tune
of $50 million.  But of course, for this scheme to work, we must be
convinced that it will.

Where does this end?  With a situation where we must believe everything
published by the Ministry of Truth, about what the Ministry of Peace is
doing in the World, or else visit the Ministry of Love, to have our
opinions corrected?

---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)