From: rakeshb@stanford.edu
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 03:40:50 EST
Quoting gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>: > I raised the possibility of an anti-war statement by the list > in [8460]. Since that time there have been a number of > off-list discussions and several members have stated that > they think OPE-L would make a better contribution > to the anti-war effort if we were to help develop a Marxist > analysis (or analyses) of the reasons for war in Iraq. > We can do that by continuing this thread and reacting to > the contributions by Cyrus, Diego and others (including > non-listmember George C) . We can, of course, discuss > other topics simultaneously. > > In solidarity, Jerry I heard Robert Brenner speak at UCLA today. I think I have perhaps a minor disagreement with him in that I think he is overemphasizing the extent to which the impetus for war is Bush's cynical attempt to unify the nation and the electorate around him even as he pushes through pornographically regressive domestic legislation. As Perry Anderson suggested, Blair may believe that no matter how unpopular the war is now, a quick and easy US victory will be as a sure a vote getter as the Falklands War and the putative liberation of Kosovo. Even if this is true, I don't think it explains why, then, the US is preoccupied with the Gulf rather than say nuclear weapon wielding North Korea. And the Democrats' complicity suggests to me that there is no real opposition in the US capitalist class to Bush's designs. My spin here may diverge from Cyrus's as well. I do welcome criticism as it may well be that any advantage from war and occupation simply does not add up to outweigh the costs...which in turn suggests the war is not economically but politically driven. Yet in terms of the US military apparatus, it seems to me that there is coincidence of interest: the military wants to maintain its size and strength in the post Cold War era, and has a need to relocate its troops with the on-going implosion of NATO (see the excellent Kolko piece on Counterpunch.org); there is also the need for the US to maintain, if not strengthen, its presence in the Middle East given the inherent instability of US friendly regimes which already being heavily invested in the US and dependent on it for their security are likely to continue to support the US bond market, the US dollar and its military industrial complex. Of course the US does not want to arm heavily and train too many personnel in those friendly regimes since that police/military apparatus could end up in the hands of others in the event of a coup; in short there is a compelling need for US bases, and the conquest of Iraq will give the US the real estate as well as ongoing justification for occupation. That is, as Bush used the first Gulf war to establish bases in Sa'udi Arabia, Bush II thinks he needs a second war to strengthen and solidify US military occupation of the Arab world. I also think there has been a tendency to underestimate the fillip US capital as a whole receives from US indirect control over dollar denominated Arab oil rent, as well as it superiority in petroleum extraction technology on which even the most nationalist third oil companies are dependent (the French are quite behind, I believe based on a conversation I had with a chief petro engineer). But technological superiority builds on itself, so the US has to maintain its position in the Middle East. I think a Bernard Mommer at the Oxford Energy Institute has prepared reports about how even despite the nationalization of the oil industry Venezuela's technological dependency has cost it most of its oil rent. The US tech lead in petro technology and oil services has proven to be quite profitable even in a world of nationalized oil companies. For the US to maintain its position in the Arab world and in petro tech business, it needs to engage in pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive not only against Iraq's full re-entry into the oil market with those French contracts on the basis of which France could develop into a more serious rival in the petro tech business but also against possible coups by Islamic fundamentalist who--like Chavez-- may attempt (the US fears) to open up the books of what they take to be only nominally state owned oil companies the lion's share of the revenues of which are thought to end up in the hands of high level managers, foreign technicians and foreign capitalists. Now of course one may say that Bush is pining for war in order to create political momentum for the next election and attemping to take attention away from his regressive domestic politics . Surely this is an important element, and surely Bush thinks the war and occupation will provide some on-going economic stimulus, though there is a never simple mechanical effect from Keynesian deficits. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 26 2003 - 00:00:01 EST