Milutin writes:
> Are you ready for this Martin?  Hold on tight!

Yes, I've read it before.  It makes my point.  It shows that the level
of the bar has been raised.  Instead of preventing NATO planners from
planning the bombing of Yugoslavia, it forced them to add an extensive
PR campaign to manage "the risk of 'provoking a domestic crisis of
unprecented proportions.'"  ...which they succeeded in doing.  The
protests occurred; they were managed, and the bombing proceeded.  The
Russian government, or elements within it, *may* have achieved the
same goal by blowing up buildings in their own cities and blaming it
on terrorists.  Or maybe it was terrorists.  Either way, the PR goal
was achieved enabling the bombing of Chechnya.

I certainly agree that if activists actually do provoke a domestic
crisis of unprecedented proportions, then the threat of another one
could force the government to act humanely, and then raise the bar
again.  But you are not prepared to provoke a domestic crisis of
unprecedented proportions.  They know it, and they have called your
bluff.  They have managed you out of the picture.  They expected your
protests and they dealt with them.  You have to actually have a
domestic crisis of unprecedented proportions once in awhile if you
want to bluff with the threat.

> "There is substantial evidence that the fear of domestic disruption
> has inhibited murderous plans. One documented case concerns Vietnam.
> The Joint Chiefs of Staff recognized the need that 'sufficient
> forces would still be available for civil disorder control.' if they
> sent troops to Vietnam after the Tet Offensive, and Pentagon
> officials feared that escalation might lead to massive civil
> disobedience, in view of the large-scale popular opposition to the
> war, running the risk of 'provoking a domestic crisis of unprecented
> proportions.'  A review of the internal documents released in the
> Pentagon Papers shows that considerations of cost were the sole
> factor inhibiting planners, a fact that should be noted by citizens
> concerned to restrain the violence of the state.  In such cases as
> these, and many others, popular demonstrations and civil
> disobedience may, under appropriate circumstances, encourage others
> to undertake a broader range of conventional action by extending the
> range of the thinkable, and where there is real popular
> understanding of the legitimacy of direct action to confront
> institutional violence, may serve as a catalyst to constructive
> organization and action that will pave the way to more fundamental
> change." -- Noam Chomsky
>
>
> Hmmm......
>
> Better luck next time?

Are you referring to the next bombing?  It has nothing to do with
luck, Milutin.

martin