|
lebell: maybe you're right and the two readings of the american afghanistan adventure are not mutually exclusive--but try to hold both in your mind at once for a while and watch how your relation to the "war on terror" changes...arguing that it has in fact driven either of the two military adventures justified through it is not possible, to my mind--which raises all kinds of questions about what the function of the rhetoric of the "war on terror" is in fact---beyond being a discursive prolongation of 911 maintained for purely political reasons--not least is the line that cheney was responsible for carting about the country during the last election cycle--the "vote kerry and you will die" or "if kerry gets elected there will be another terrorist attack" versions.
you may not arrive at identical conclusions, but if you want to experiment with the kind of dissonance that shapes the views of some who oppose the present administration and the climate that it generates to justify itself, maybe use this as a way to do it.
it seems that for supporters of this administration, the logic is that one reading is true and the other irrelevant. i do not think that this move is possible--your previous post implies as much. so what if you take the next step, even as a thought experiment?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|