Re: Not WMD but parasite needed a new host

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 2003-05-29 10:50 -0500, you wrote:
> WMDs only 'bureaucratic reason' for war: Wolfowitz
> May 29 2003

Valuable reference.

Rings true.

What is not clear is out of the coalition who all found it convenient to
unite over WMD, where the present centre of gravity lies. Wolfowitz appears
committed to restructuring the Middle East, perhaps for example in
preference to sorting out Cuba. In that will the hegemons really want to
press concessions on Israel, and will they want to prepare for war with
Iran, which will be more challenging than Iraq?

Secondly the march of international law leaves the hegemons exposed in
these sorts of adventures. Wolfowitz may ride it out but would the lawyers
of the major oil companies have done so, if the SC had not rubber stamped
the occupation of Iraq? Note that even the US waited until the SC
resolution before formally sacking tens of thousands of Baath officials.
And Britain is likely to find it much more difficult to be the US side kick
on another adventure with a leaky legal justification. Blair is clearly
trying to position himself more firmly in a multilateralist than a
unilateralist imperialist agenda.

Fundamentally this raises the question of whether the neo-conservatives do
or do not represent the central interests of international capital.

Chris Burford

London