Re: [Marxism] Stan Goff comments on Stratfor article

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> [clip]
> These were some comments I made o a local list with reference to the
> same article.  SG
>
> THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
> 17 May 2004
>
> Iraq: New Strategies
>
> By George Friedman
>
> The only way to
> achieve that was to force Saudi Arabia -- and lesser enabling countries
> such as Iran and Syria -- THERE IS NOT ONLY NO EVIDENCE TO CONNECT
> EITHER IRAN OR SYRIA TO THE TALIBAN OR WAHHABISM GENERALLY, BECAUSE THIS
> ISLMAIC FUNDAMENTALIST CURRENT WAS INTENSELY HOSTILE TO BOTH THOSE
> COUNTRIES to change their policies on al Qaeda and crack down on its
> financial and logistical systems. In order to do that, the United States
> needed two things. First, it had to demonstrate its will and competence
> in waging war -- something seriously doubted by many in the Islamic
> world and elsewhere. Second, it had to be in a position to threaten
> follow- on actions in the region. SO THE EX-SPOOKS ARE CLAIMING THAT THE
> US WAR IN IRAQ IS FOR DEMONSTRATION EFFECT

(I think the typographical device Stan chose here was not a particularly
happy choice -- I had more trouble following this than I usually do with
his writing.) Stan's last statement is important. "Demonstration effect"
needs extensive commentary and definition, but I think it points to the
_actual_ reason for all of U.S. military interventions beginning no
later than the First Gulf War and including the various interventions in
the Balkans. The United States has a huge empire (of a new type) to
control, and it cannot do that work directly for the most part but must
depend on governments over which it exercises little or no direct power
in the ordinary course of events. I would give as probable examples
Argentina and Indonesia. (I believe the usual trite metaphor for this is
herding cats.)

U.S. power, then, must be made effective in nations where it does not
directly operate. Endless War, essentially an endless series of
demonstration effects, is a response to this problem. Perhaps the only
response possible.

And if that is true, it is also true that a Democratic president would
have gotten us involved in _some_ war (or wars) -- and that presidents
from _both_ parties will continue to do so.

The 'problem' (and/or opportunity) leftists face is how to  build an
enduring mass movement in opposition to this policy. . . . [the thought
here is incomplete].

Carrol


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism