From: Ian Hunt (Ian.Hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU)
Date: Sat Apr 12 2003 - 21:38:08 EDT
Dear Jerry, I agree with your qualifications on long term security for oil suppies and hegemony of US in Middle east: I was referring to outcome that the war would tend to lead to (and expected by US planners) and that it always subject to countertendencies. I also agree that if the emergence of otehr forms of resistance is only a necessary condition of some alternative to terrorism: as you say, if left wing resistance to US hegemony increases and loses its way out of frustration, then there may be some counterproductive leftist terrorism. I hope the ultimate outcome is one, two, three, Chiapas - the alternative of more Iraq's will compound this disaster, cheers, Ian >Re Ian's post yesterday: > > > I don't agree with the conclusion that the result is just total Israeli >> hegomony: I would have thought that US hegemony in the Middle east is >> the primary result, from which Israel can expect some capitulations from >> Palestinians. > >I agree that the (temporary) success in striving to regain US >hegemony (Cyrus) or preserve US hegemony (Hans and others), >rather than "Total Israeli hegemony", is the major context. Israel, >although in some ways and times it acts like a "loose cannon", is >a proxy for larger imperialist powers in the Middle East. > >Overall, I think that the "Al Jazeerah" assessment (reproduced below) >reflects the disappointment, frustration, and cynicism in the Arab >world today. The resistance early on in the war to the invasion and >the demonstrations by many millions of people against the war globally >led many to think that Iraq could win the war or at least wage a >credible resistance to the invasion for a protracted period. Many on >the Left shared this illusion -- indeed, there was much talk on the >Internet of how the battle in Baghdad would be similar to the battle >in Stalingrad. Now that these optimistic fantasies have been >crushed, many (including, evidently, those who wrote the "Al Jazeerah" >statement) now have become pessimistic and disillusioned. > > > Another consequence is that so long as >> religiousfundamentalists/chauvinists/terrorists represent the only >> resistance to US hegemony in the middle east, there is an increased >> prospect of terrorist attacks on the US and its allies. > >Terrorism, though, is not the exclusive franchise of right-wing religious >fundamentalists and national chauvinists. One could easily envision >scenarios -- especially if there isn't a mass movement on the Left of >workers and peasants -- of terrorist organizations developing (out of >frustration) from the Left. Yet, increased terrorist attacks against the >US and its allies would most likely empower the right-wing more in the >US and elsewhere and would be used as a rationalization for more >domestic repression and wars. > > > I don't know >> that we can conclude that the outcome will be a triumph for the stock >> market, though it will represent long term security for US oil supplies. > >I agree with the first part of your sentence. The stock markets seem to >be reacting to short-run developments. Thus when the war was effectively >ended sooner than was expected, stock market 'euphoria' developed ... >for a day or two. In a similar way, when -- earlier on in the war -- Iraqi >resistance was greater than anticipated, there were no stock market >'rallies' on Wall Street. > >I can see why you might think that a result will be to ensure long-term >security for the US of oil supplies, but there are a lot of possibilities that >could disrupt that prospect in the 'long term' (e.g. mass uprisings >against US-supported regimes in the Middle East). > > > < snip, JL> They are already making threatening noises about >> Syria. > >Yes, that is an ominous development. And, of course, now that the main >fighting in Iraq has ended, the US may turn its attention to the two other >members of Bush's "Axis of Evil" -- Iran and N. Korea. Indeed, if the US >wanted seriously to invade Iran then they already have their military >forces nearby and could promptly launch an assault. Meanwhile the >North Korean government, saying that it doesn't want to suffer the same >fate as Iraq, appears to be pushing ahead with nuclear weapons >development and, quite possibly, is on a collision course with the US. >Or, it could be that US attention will now be focused on Latin America. > >To turn a slogan from the Vietnam War on its head: one, two, three, >many Iraqs? *Or* will it be: one, two, three, many Venezuelas? ... *or* >will it be: one, two, three, many Chiapas? > >In solidarity, Jerry > > > Here's an assessment from "Al Jazeerah" online at > http://www.aljazeerah.us/ : > > "The US, the world's super power, defeats the Third > World country of Iraq after pounding it for 12 years > through sanctions. Casualties: less than 100 soldiers for > US and about 1.5 million Iraqis. Consequences: Total > Israeli hegemony over the Middle East, the oil wells are > secure, the military industry will be thriving for decades, > and the stock markets are ready to take off." -- Associate Professor Ian Hunt, Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, Philosophy Dept, School of Humanities, Flinders University of SA, Humanities Building, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT