there is quite a difference bwteen analytical rationality what elites debate and waht happens on the ground. the same could be said for any other american war. one is not to confuse or conflate the views of the few and juxtapose those to the way a process eveolves. in the case of iraq and nam and korea wars redressed balance of forces disequilibria in a continum called histroty in which the grave diggers of impeiralism need just a little nudge to get their act into shape to bring the whole edifice of capitalism down. a sytem that since 1929 been living on borrowed time. the invasion of iraq was contemnpplated by american circles early in the cold war. even Chirchil said of iraq and i paraphrase "it is a great catch where there plaisn
to rasie livestock.. oil" if it was not for the soviet union iraq would have styaed an anglo american colony.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>
To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 8:25:09 PM
Subject: Re: Beyond Quagmire
On 3/15/07, Yoshie Furuhashi <critical.montages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> What about the fact that they already had Iraqi Kurdistan more or less
> in their pocket?
having that as a potential base for invasion, made it much easier to
conquer the rest of Iraq. It also fed illusions about being "greeted
with roses," since the Kurds were pretty friendly to the US.
--
Jim Devine / "The truth is more important than the facts." -- Frank Lloyd Wright