> I would note that Stratfor's existence and anti-interventionism just
> illustrates the point that there is a large business consistituency
> attuned
> to opposing interventionism. Despite claims made to the contrary, there
> is
> little evidence of a clear business class interest in military
> intervention
> in this era, now that the Soviet threat has disappeared. Stratfor is a
> good
> illustration of a constituency that sees interventionism as
> counterproductive in an age when there are many other forms of economic
> power that can secure and expand investments globally.
>
>
Then I guess the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, USA Today, NBC News, ABC News, CBC News, Time, Newsweek must belong to a different "business constituency".
U.S. businesses are big fans of NATO. They show up at every NATO conference, they have pro-Atlanticist think tanks. The Kosovo war was a crusade to shore up NATO. Maybe that's why Nathan's "anti-war business constituency" is a bit skimpy. As President Clinton said:
And if we're go-ingto have a strong economic relationship that includes our ability to sell around the world, Europe has got to be a key. And if we want people to share our burdens of leader-ship with all the problems that will inevitably crop up, Europe needs to be our partner. Now, that's what this Kosovo thing is all about... it's about our values.
(Quoted in LBO#89).
Seth