PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
CHALLENGE on Iraq
- To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: CHALLENGE on Iraq
- From: Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:31:25 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=M2K4sE5X4ny2pfew6vZK/r8hA46UYBhpS/orXJHTi8EpiRmv4INmyxeMVRnULkM/m7/Dqm4sCeQnpEulsJIumjp82+sXp+UK0dWjQhgZLHmLkkY+tfv/Y1D0OtzL0YVYPhd2NZK/eCI2dm9rIygo/9FO25+ZjtJ0San83BDCtew=
I was surprised to find that at the end of the current semi-popular
economics magazine CHALLENGE, there is a short note "from the
publisher," Mike Sharpe. (I thought his name was Myron.) He's arguing
that the US should get out of Iraq: "I wonder why a single woman,
Cindy Sheehan, must bear the brunt of the anti-war movement without
any help from American political leaders."
Sharpe has always been some sort of liberal or social democrat. The
limits of his perspective show: "The only bargaining power left to the
United States [given the conditions limned in the previous paragraph,
the three-way geographic split in Iraq] is to get some concessions in
return for reparations and leaving Iraq." It's unclear to me who
would be paying reparations here: Iraq or the US? (Since the US is
losing, it would pay reparations?) It's clearer what he means by
concessions: "equality for women, acceptance of the Sunni area as an
autonomous region, and per capita distribution of [ownership of?] oil
reserves."
Sharpe should know that equality for women is something that can't be
imposed by an outside power using high-tech weaponry. The other two
concessions don't seem likely either. If the US is pulling out, how
does it impose this solution?
In any case, the Bushwhackers aren't going to listen to Sharpe. More
realistic is A.K. Gupta's article, "New Exit Strategy for Iraq: Civil
War" in the current Z MAGAZINE (vol. 18, no. 9). He says what's going
on is a US-sponsored Civil War, in effect that the US wants Iraq to
split. Though a lot of his analysis is spot-on, I think that the US
elite would rather have Iraq stay together. But since it's falling
apart, they'll take advantage of it. As long as the US elite gets
control over oil and crucial military bases, the splitting of Iraq
would be a "second best solution." Issues of equality for women are
irrelevant to the Bushies.
--
Jim Devine
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let
people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
- Thread context:
- Re: bankruptcy,
David B. Shemano Wed 21 Sep 2005, 02:11 GMT
- CHALLENGE on Iraq,
Jim Devine Tue 20 Sep 2005, 21:31 GMT
- history lesson,
Dan Scanlan Tue 20 Sep 2005, 21:01 GMT
- bankruptcy [was: Neoclassical bizarreness!!!],
Jim Devine Tue 20 Sep 2005, 20:30 GMT
- blog/wiki site -- more info...,
ravi Tue 20 Sep 2005, 19:42 GMT
- Before the Fall premieres,
Louis Proyect Tue 20 Sep 2005, 19:00 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]