From: rakeshb@stanford.edu
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 12:17:14 EST
Quoting gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@msn.com in 8509>: > A possible military confrontation with North Korea is far different > from a military confrontation with Iraq. By way of analogy, the > US government in the early 1980's wanted to overthrow the > governments in (among other places) Cuba and Grenada. Why > did they invade Grenada and not Cuba? Well, they thought they > could invade Grenada within a very brief time with minimal > projected casualties. As my post indicated, I don't think this is a good analogy. The nature of US interests in the Middle East is far different than in Cuba, Grenada or Korea for that matter. The US is not going to war against Iraq simply because it will be easier to win than a war against North Korea. My point remains this: I don't think that the US war drive can be explained by the fact that the war itself will probably be quick and successful and that a parade which will secure Bush's re-election will follow. It seems that you are accepting what can be called a "domestic poltical" explanation for Bush's war drive. And then specifiying that given the need for a war to rally the electorate and ensure re-election, Bush has chosen Iraq because it will prove relatively easy to conquer. Of course this may not be what you are implying but you have not yet offered your own your own positive explanation for US plans to oust Saddam and occupy Iraq--are you in agreement with George Caffentzis for example? I am arguing against both George's ideas and an explanation which is weighted too heavily towards domestic political considerations. It's also not clear to me that, tragically, the Bush administration has not lost all focus on the Korean crisis. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 26 2003 - 00:00:01 EST