Ummm...
(i) The Iraqi inspection is under the control of the United Nations...
>The security
>council is divided on this with France taking a more progressive line than
>Britain.
(ii) ...which is not dominated by the U.S.--if the security council is divided. Indeed, that's why Pat Buchanan doesn't like George Bush...
>Real consent with the backing of the Arab League could only come
>about if the US withdraws its military bases,
(iii) The bases in Saudi Arabia I suppose? There with the consent of the Saudi government (and people living along the gulf who don't want to be ruled by Saddam Hussein)?
>and its massive backing of Israel
(iv) Ah.The "Zionist entity." What's supposed to happen then? You did read the fatwa, I presume? The declaration of war not against the Israeli state but against the Jewish people? The frank and open call to finish the job that Hitler left half-done?
>and agrees an economic development plan for the area.
(v) The Middle East has not had a shortage of hard currency in this century. Do you really think that the Middle East's problem is a lack of foreign aid?
>There is a lot
>to play for, and the class forces have just taken a turn adverse to the US
>goverment.
For most of this century, the left has severely diminished its chances of doing anything constructive by virtue of its attachment to--and eagerness to explain away the devastation wrought by--a bunch of very nasty dictators.
Why does my heart sink at the thought of the left thinking that the way to start a crusade to add flesh to the dry bones of international law by taking up the cause of bin Laden, the Taliban, the Iraqi dictatorship, and the Sudanese government?
Brad DeLong