Looting; US Plans for the Iraqi Nat'l Bourgeoisie (was:Re: marxism-digest V1 #5714

["LouPaulsen" <LouPaulsen@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Harris" <rhh1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> " I think we have to accuse the US invaders as being directly
> responsible for the looting and giving it public support. "
>
> I bet they want civil unrest to grow, so the people will welcome the US
> General / Strong Man who will appear as saviour (we cannot rule
ourselves -
> rule us!)
>
> Richard.

That's one theory of three.

The first theory is that it's just a mistake, a miscalculation, they hadn't
wargamed for it, etc.  That's bullshit though.

The second theory is Richard's: it's meant as a temporary degradation of the
urban population, in order to terrorize them into supporting US troops in
order to have their police protection - even to degrade them, to convince
them that (as the neocons believe) Islamic society is a degraded, inferior
society, they are inferior people, 'half-devil and half-child' in Kipling's
terms, who truly NEED the western overlord.

It's a plausible theory, but not the only one.

The third theory, which is mine, is that this is (not only meant to
accomplish the results of the second theory, but also) meant to PERMANENTLY
ruin the commercial and social structure of Baghdad and the other Iraqi
cities and to DESTROY the Iraqi national bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie.

This really all hinges on what their long-term plans for the Iraqi national
bourgeoisie really are.  Does the US want to rebuild them?  Rehabilitate
them?  Make Baghdad an independent center of Arab culture and commerce and
production again?

My reaction: why would they believe this to be in their interest?  The oil
wells aren't in Baghdad.

Or just ruin them and dispense with them, throwing Iraq back a couple
hundred years or more of historical development, both as a terrible lesson
to Palestine, Syria, Iran, Cuba, and the whole planet really, and also to
weaken the whole nation to the point where it can't organize effective
resistance, even on a national-bourgeois basis - "ever"?

I think Rumsfeld's "reconstruction? what reconstruction?" reaction suggests
that this is the way they're leaning.

I would of course prefer to be wrong about this.

Lou Paulsen
Chicago