From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Memories longer than two weeks (Was: Re: Usual Libels Against Chomsky)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:22:52

1. As to how Orwell should be taken, refer to the reviews of 1984
published at the time, and consider where 1984 was published and
where it was banned.  Doubtless Orwell did use his BBC experience,
but the leftist critics took the book as referring to the Stalinist
Soviet Union and were offended.

2. The political collapse of the Soviet Union was predicted in Andrei
Amalrik's 1978 book "Will the Soviet Union survive until 1984" and
somewhat more vaguely by Ronald Reagan.

3. Many things have come out about Soviet and East German military
readiness since the collapse.  The were indeed planning an offensive
nuclear war from the beginning and they were prepared to attack on no
notice, having the portable bridges ready to cross West German rivers.
There was indeed plenty of uncertainty about how useful satellite
troops would be.  They had 70,000 tanks instead of the 40,000 of
previous estimates.

The extreme superiority of some of the Western equipment, especially
tanks, that was demonstrated in the Persian Gulf was a surprise to
everyone on both sides except for the Israelis who told us that we
were taking Saddam Hussein much too seriously.  I remember just before
the ground war began hearing KPFA's Soviet expert William Mandel
telling how Americans couldn't fight and how the Iraqis might sweep
around the Americans in the West.  It would be interesting to know
what Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Cockburn were saying about 
the military situation at the beginning of January 1991.  I'd bet
they were babbling about the number of body bags.  Does anyone
remember?  In short, the estimates suit the political goals.

4. I was talking today at tea in the Hoover Institution to a
Lieutenant Colonel who until recently commanded a parachute battalion
that was in Turkey during the Gulf War and in Kurdistan for a while
afterwards.  There was no doubt in his mind that the American military
capacity was inevitably going to be drastically reduced, and he
offered no arguments that it shouldn't.  He just said that it was
tough on people who had made the military their profession.
He was pleased to be out of the stress for a year.

5. In any case, I am one of those conservatives who favors a large
decrease in the military.  The Navy, except for the Marines,
is my main target.  I would reduce aircraft carriers and both
kinds of submarines by a factor of five.  I favor generous
discharge allowances for those forced out of the services.

6. Hardly anyone will be impressed, except with your erudition,
by your reference to what Knightley said about the Korean War,
since you tell us nothing about what he said.

As an aside, do you think it will turn out that I. F. Stone took KGB
money or not.  Some ex-Soviet sources say he did from 1951 to 1968,
but no-one calls the matter hard and fast yet.  One could bet either
way, but I'll bet we'll eventually know.  Would it bother you if it
turned out he did?  After all, the I.F. Stone Newsletter may have
lost money for some years.



--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh