From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 12:48:29 EST
Re Rakesh's [8510]: > 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. Right, but what is required from a logistical military perspective and the projected political fallout is something that they surely take into consideration. > 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 political" explanation for Bush's war drive. No, I am not asserting that 'domestic political' reasons are the *reason* for Bush's drive to war. Rather, I am suggesting that the movement to the Right post 9/11 in the US has impacted the *timing* of his plans to war. That is, I do not think that domestic political considerations (e.g. a desire to get re-elected a la 'wag the dog') has been behind the war initiative. But -- unquestionably -- the political climate in the US has changed post-9/11 and this makes it more possible to move forward parts of the Bush agenda that might otherwise have remained on the back burner. > I am arguing against both George's ideas > and an explanation which is weighted too heavily towards > domestic political considerations. You may be right about this. What I find more unsatisfying with George's analysis is his underplaying inter-imperialist rivalry. In his talk, he also made the case that a characteristic of the G.W. Bush administration, in contrast to the Clinton administration, is its movement towards unilateralism. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me since the "New World Order" championed by his father posited multilateralism and a large role for the UN. I don't see G.W.'s policy as a rejection of his father's _policy_ objectives. The dispute among the imperialist powers, in my view, concerns strategic objectives rather than just tactics. I don't think that George, though, would necessarily agree with that assessment. I've got to get off of the computer now so I can see fellow listmember John M who is coming by my apartment for a chat and lunch. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 27 2003 - 00:00:00 EST