|| -----Original Message-----
|| From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
|| [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Carrol Cox
||
|| Hakki Alacakaptan wrote:
|| >
|| > Carrol, Exxon and Halliburton have already got the oil
|| rights. The problem
|| > is getting the stuff to the Asian market. The western
|| pipeline routes aren't
|| > that profitable.
||
||
|| My focus was on the imperial interests of the U.S. (and/or its ruling
|| class) _as a whole_: and that interest is, in very real ways,
|| potentially quite indifferent to the 'local' interests of EXXON or
|| UNOCAL (or GM for that matter), though as a matter of empirical fact oil
|| (and connected) interests have pretty much driven u.s. policy for a
|| century or so. In respect to oil that general interest dictates only
|| that the oil be available -- not that its profits be retained by this or
|| that oil company. [Remember the second half of my subject line: A
|| Speculation.)
||
Re imperialist strategy, propping up Central Asian oil dictators and possibly turning them into clients makes sense. If the Taliban can be neutralized, the Islamic guerillas in the Caucasus will be up against the wall, so no immediate threats will remain for these regimes. Strategic control of oil production and distribution will also strengthen the US hand against China, which is shaping up to be a dangerous strategic rival. Just yesterday a Ukranian-built aircraft carrier went throught the Bosphorus Straits here en route to China, and which will no doubt be used for modern-day gunboat diplomacy in Southeast Asia. Zbig was the first to point out that strategic control of Central Asia was vital for US interests. Clinton worked hard at building alliances in the area (you remember I mentioned Centrasbat) in which Turkey has a pretty important part. The Republicans, as always, think bombs are quicker.
|| Those interests _also_ (as a whole) are concerned with the safety of
|| imperial power -- and if my speculation is correct, it is that safety
|| (rather than UNOCAL profits which they may be misjudging, and in the
|| process allowing themselves to be "drawn in deep." "They" (whoever they
|| are) may be judging that they _must_ respond in force; that they must
|| continue to teach lessons (this is Sartre's argument re the vietnam war)
|| to (Twain's phrase) "The Person Sitting in Darkness." And that may be a
|| strategic error on their part. I am thinking that it is along these
|| lines that leftists (and A Left if we succeed in forming one) should
|| make _our_ strategic plans: that we should organize now on the
|| assumption that the Ruling Class is indeed waist deep in the big muddy,
|| and the damn fool says, wade on.
||
Absolutely. They're not getting out of this one. Zbig told CNN that if the US takes on the Taliban, it's going to get bogged down. Making a deal with the Taliban was their only alternative, now the best thing they can do is cut their losses and run, which is not going to happen. What started out as a punitive expedition against the Taliban will drag on for years as a world war between the North and the South, as US brutality in Afghanistan escalates, provoking a proportional rage in the Islamic world as well as in Latin America. And it's not like it's going to teach the US any lessons either.
|| Carrol
||
|| [1] All I am asserting is a multiplicity of special interests, and the
|| possible predominance at a given time of one group or another of those
|| interests. I am NOT asserting that in any significant sense there exist
|| antagonistic contradictions within the ruling class. That assumption is
|| (has been for a century) the premise of opportunism in the u.s. -- i.e.
|| the belief of some leftists that "the left" can ally with this or that
|| sector of the ruling class.
I dunno but I definitely preferred Clinton's methods. The Texan capital behind Bush is going to find itself pretty lonely this time next year when the recession begins to depress stock prices. Papa Bush's oil war was nice because oil prices went up and defence contractors were happy, and that constitutes a pretty big coalition. However, if this recession puts 3-4 million people out of work as predicted, those juicy defence contracts and oil profits will cause a lot of resentment among _real_ companies that actually have to _sell_ their product.
||
|| Carrol
||