[Marxism] (fwd from msidiqque) on Chomsky

[Les Schaffer <schaffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As much as I respect Prof. Chomsky's work, in the interview he
oversimplifies the reasons for US's invasion and occupation of Iraq. One
has to start at the beginning, that is the Project for New American
Century (PNAC) crafted by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald
Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, et al. It is clear from that document that the
intention of the neo-fascists (I am not sure what neo-con means) is to
establish US hegemony in the world, to ensure the kind of challenges it
faced from the former Soviet Union will never arise again. It is in this
context that the continued militarization of the US even after the end
of the Cold War must be seen.

Sadam Hussain provided it, and Iraq was picked out specifically because
it allowed the opportunity to (i) assert that hegemony, (ii) advance the
cause of the ultra-right Zionists to establish Israel's hegemony in the
region (and ensure that it would act as US proxy to police the region),
and (iii) assumed that Iraq's oil would provide the funds for this
endeavor. It is precisely because of this that US deliberately ignored
world opinion (that is what asserting hegemony require!), created
excuses that were blatantly false (I refuse to accept that Bush and his
neo-fascist thugs did not know that the truth would come out eventually,
but so what) and only required to fool US population, used excessive
amount of military power (again a tool for asserting hegemony) even when
it was clear that there was nothing in Sadam's arsenal to require this
amount of ammunitions. Yes, oil was /a/ factor, an incentive for support
from some quarters, but not the main reason. US already has sufficient
control over the region's oil through its client states in the region.

If things did not go as badly as it has in Iraq, US would have extended
its tentacles into Syria and Iran by now; and it yet may do so.

It is a warning to all potential opponents of the US's power, not only
the organized states but also others.

The tragedy is that none of the US politicians - not even the so called
progressive Democrats - have so far denounced the hegemonic policies
laid out in the PNAC document. I suspect they support it becuse they are
also concerned about the (eventual) rise of some form of socialism, if
not immediate, at least in the distant future. I reacll, in an interview
around the time of the fall of the Berlin wall, Zibgenew Brizinsky (yse,
the father of the Taleban; sorry about the spelling of his name) said
that as long as there is poverty, inequality, oppression, socialism will
remain attractive to many.



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism