Re: [Marxism] Re: Tariq Ali on the US election

["Marvin Gandall" <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Flewers has a very sound analysis of the situation in Iraq - especially
the reasons why the US finds it difficult for to withdraw - but I would be
less definitive about the following statement:



"Iraq is central to US plans for the Eurasian land-mass. You hold Iraq,
you're in a key position to start to dominate the whole area. That's why,
incidentally, there has been this obsession with Iraq for some 15 years or
more, and why, I think, the USA will not withdraw."



I think the US already knows at this stage that it will finally have to
withdraw its forces. There is no doubt both the liberal and conservative
factions of the US ruling class felt that Saddam was an obstacle to their
control of the oil-rich Middle East - which at bottom requires settlement of
the Palestine question on Israeli terms - and sought his removal for this
reason, albeit by different means. The conservative Bush administration
thought it could radically accomplish this end through  invasion, but has
failed miserably, undermining rather than improving America's position in
the region and internationally.



This result has strengthened the liberal wing, mostly but not exclusively
concentrated in the Democratic party, which anticipated this outcome, and
which understands that the US cannot act unilaterally, except against the
most defenceless tiny states in its own backyard such as Panama and Grenada,
and that the use of ground troops to invade and occupy territory has to be a
very last resort.  The Bush administration has been forced back to this
understanding, and now, as in Vietnam,  I think both parties are looking for
a way to withdraw US forces. Their preferred option is to eliminate any
potential opposition to a US client government, which probably explains the
renewed assault against the Sadrists.



But there is no reason why the US ruling class cannot ultimately cut deals
for its oil companies with nationalist and Islamist forces in the Middle
East and central Asia which would still enable it to retain control of the
oil supply. Sure, it would like to have absolute rather than relative
control, in the same way employers would not like to have to deal with
unions and make concessions in collective bargaining to ensure stability.
But there comes a point when the relationship of forces simply does not
permit this. My reading is that the US, in the wake of the Iraq debacle, may
have come to this point in the Mideast. That is what Kerry represents,
although I don't necessarily think, as many on this list do, that he has
become the instrument of the ruling class for that purpose. The Bush
administration has, after all, fallen back into line on foreign policy, and
the Republican base and program is more business-friendly, so who needs
Kerry?



But I do agree it's not going to be easy nor good for US world hegemony to
execute a hasty withdrawal under fire, which explains why ruling class
liberals are just as anxious to draw it out and disguise it so it doesn't
appear that way.



Marv Gandall

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Flewers" <trusscott.foundation@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Marxism Discussion List" <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Re: Tariq Ali on the US election


> I suspected some time back that a growing number of people within the US
> ruling class were getting increasingly worried about Bush's incendiary
> foreign policy, and I also suspected that any Presidential candidate would
> deploy a 'patriotic opposition' line against Bush -- that whilst the USA
> must have a presence in the Middle East [a polite way of saying extend its
> hegemony there] to defend its economic and diplomatic interests there,
Bush
> and his neo-con team have made a right mess of it, and have damaged US
> interests in the region.
>
> Looking from afar, this is what Kerry seems to be saying. From his point
of
> view (as a contender for the figurehead of US imperialism), this makes
> perfect sense. Comrades have pointed out Clinton's role in sanctions
against
> Iraq, bombing Sudan and Yugoslavia, etc; Kerry will play an imperialist
role
> in Iraq and the Middle East as a whole, but he will try and be a little
less
> stupid than Bush. How he'll do it begs the question.
>
> Whoever wins the Presidential election is handing himself a poisoned
> chalice. Iraq is central to US plans for the Eurasian land-mass. You hold
> Iraq, you're in a key position to start to dominate the whole area. That's
> why, incidentally, there has been this obsession with Iraq for some 15
years
> or more, and why, I think, the USA will not withdraw. The USA can't
> withdraw, as this will mean abandoning the recolonisation of the Middle
> East, falling in the quest for the new US imperium at the first hurdle (as
> if Hitler had failed at the Anschluss in 1938 rather than at Stalingrad
and
> Kursk).
>
> I imagine that the US ruling class is hoping that the unrest in Iraq will
> die down sufficiently to permit an orderly occupation under a credible
> puppet government, one that will hopefully win next year's election, and
> will have sufficient repressive powers. This occupation will permit a US
> military build-up, and also allow US corporations to sink their claws
> completely into the Iraqi economy. I think that this is unlikely, even if
> the unrest dies down a bit, the USA will still be seen as an occupier, any
> government formed under its aegis will be seen as a puppet, and therefore
an
> anti-US bloc could win the forthcoming elections. I think that the puppet
> Interim Government will probably postpone or even cancel the elections,
and
> in the meantime build up (or try to) the mechanisms of a strong state --
in
> short, return Iraq to a dictatorship. We've seen the start of this with
the
> introduction of martial law and the introduction of the death penalty. But
> this will be a dictatorship that will face opposition from the start.
>
> How will any new US administration deal with this? If it goes in harder
and
> institutes a real terror regime, it will probably be stoking up more
trouble
> for itself. I think that US policy towards Iraq is in a bind -- it can't
> withdraw, but the occupation is running deeper into trouble, without any
> realistic solutions at hand.
>
> Paul F
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
>



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