There are a couple a smal misunderstandings (granted that this is based on a good deal of agreement) so if you forgive me I would like to pick these details up.
I believe oil plays a part, but a relatively minor one and perhaps not even the role one would expect bearing in mind Bush's oil background. Bush's oil is anchored in the state of affairs that now exist in the Middle East, Bush Snr's Gulf response, first and foremost, came from this quarter - protecting special interests. Oil of course would not be too far from the current Bush administration's mind, perhaps they do look enviously to the vast reserves to the Afganhistan's North, but this is not the motivation, it is an after-thought - a literal pipe-dream.
There are other interests in oil, the archaic proped-up regimes which act as agents for the old US oil gaints, is not necessarily the way that modern international capitalism would like it made available. Good as it may be for some sections of capital it is not necessarily what capital in general requires. I am not sure what is at play here, nor its ultimate direction, I am sure that the post-war oil compromise is under pressure from a variety of forces - the very thing that Bush wishes to pepetuate may have avery limited sell-by-date.
What is striking about everything to do with Bush Jnr's war is the inepitude, the lack of any decisive aims - it seems a case of strategy following rhetoric. If the whole thing is viewed ala Vietnam style intervention then we are looking at the supreme capitalist state in action, the unity of national financial capital, vast imperial monopolies and the US state in a territorial acquistion - this is not the case. Nor are we even looking at a desperate attempt to preserve the status quo in the Middle East (the established territories) ala Bush Snr.
ObL has become an excuse, like Tonkin Bay perhaps, but it was a non-specific excuse. Bush needed to make a unilateral military action ObL gave him a target and a place - Tonkin Bay was engineered as an excuse to go to specific place as part of a war against a specific long-term target. This is a very big difference and filters right through every aspect of the campaign.
The state fascism emerging, the blanket propaganda war and the ad hoc nature of each step does not speak of a united conjunction between leading sections of capital and an Imperial power. Rather it is a regard attempt to keep alive Imperial power with a rump of old capital. On this we may disagree, but if it is conceded then this defines what we should be saying and the specific things we should be bringing up.
Oddly in America this need to preserve power by exercising unilateral force seems to have been pre-expressed domestically in the American extreme right para-miliatries, expressed in their rather Darwinist view of civil life and their pre-occupations with UN super-government. In a sense this seems to be Bush's foriegn policy writ small and on reflection it is very much Clinton's though a softer and less bellicose version in the latter's case.
It is interesting then that when such superficial unity for the war has been made across US society, that the impulse towards fascism also is being expressed. I am here referring not to the security checks, but to the widespread closing down of debate that has occured and the heavy handedness of it. It is a very fragile condition which I doubt can last long - it fosters counter arguments which need to be wedged in whenever possible.
Nor is the American alliance (I here refer to its European partners) as firm as they might appear, internal pressures here in Australia for instance are mounting, an ex-genernal has denounced our involvement (an extremely rare event in our history), journalists have exploded over the amount of self-censorship being imposed by the media and the letters pages of the papers are witnessing a overwhelming questioning of everything about this campaign.
On one hand the apparent resolve is very strong, but only to the extent that all questioning is surpressed. In terms of the USA, it may not matter what happens in the US for the contradictions to overwhelm it abroad. I believe we are looking at an end play of old style international politics, not as most have assumed the ongoing movement of them.
This brings me to the point of difference, not necessarily a big difference, but an essential one. I agree with you about the American oligarchies and their direct connection with this campaign - there is no doubt about that. What is vital is whether they represent the leading elements of capital, does American imperial interest represent such a thing (as it would have classically done during imperialism) - in both cases I would say no. The US has tried to promote itself from being the sole surviving super-power into being the defacto world government, but it can only do so by making and maintaining its right to make unilateral use of force (which is somewhat in contradiction with the idea of governance and not a satisfactory form for internationalisied capital).
It is a contradiction, because the influences over the US state are naturally biased to older forms of capital (hence the rather shabby rigging of the election). These old capitals no longer can even maintain national hegemony within the US (which makes such rigging exercisies a necessity - resembling the national politics of the US before the 1890s), nor can it even provide substantive and robust reasons for exercising power within its own borders (hence each action lacks any decisive logic and thus must be protected from debate). If the US is hit with more attacks, no-doubt there will be great backing for further US action, even without this I doubt that the feelings of patroitism will be quickly overcome. This may be frustrating for the US left, but it may not matter in terms of world affairs and what happens next.
What will happen, and I am certain of this, is a clear demonstration not of US power but impotance (the very means of action are in contradiction), I doubt the US can win by going in, for it has no real objectives, nor can it withdraw without showing itself equally inept.
What then happens, is what we are least prepared for, if the superpower is not the point of world governance what is? The UN? Well perhaps a very much reformed UN, people forget that its very design was to accomodate imperial ambitions, not hinder them. UN reform has hardly been touched on, yet this is likely to be the first area where post-Afgahnistan changes focus. Likewise, just what is the new oligarchy, the international forms of capital these have barely been analysised. And when the change becomes obvious, what is the class role for the state.
All these things are before us in embryo, but we have not even begun to look at them. I believe, because of this we have very little to say which is effective at this time, we are not wedging open the political concord of this current war, it will come apart, but not because of our intervention and hence what is formed next is not likely to be what we want.
Sorry Hakki, that is my major worry, I believe like old generals we are fighting the last class war and not the one in front of us. You see it is not just peace that is at stake, but the sort of peace this will eventually resolve itself into. The war itself was lost by the US before it was even begun. Likewise for us, we lost the struggle long before we knew there was one, we did not know contemporary internationalism, we have not grasped the laws of capital in this period and thus have no place to shepard the contradictions, effectively we tail behind the peace party (any sort of peace, so long as no bombs are dropped) and the anarchists (down with it all) and I do not speak as someone who has any answers in his back pocket (I barely can see the questions).
Please do not see this as a rebuttal, for it is not. I am attempting in a long winded fashion to add another layer, not subtract the one you have illustrated.
Greg Schofield Perth Australia
--- Message Received --- From: "Hakki Alacakaptan" <nucleus at superonline.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 11:39:47 +0200 Subject: RE: "Drawing the Enemy in Deep" A Speculation
|| -----Original Message-----
|| From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
|| [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Greg Schofield (...)
||
|| The added element has to be seen in the light of an emerging
|| international civilty which the retrobates in the US are
|| resisting with unilateral action of which Afganhistan is a
|| clear expression. The first thing ruled out, was any
|| diplomatic/legal or peaceful resolution, nor can that be
|| brought up - for this is what Bush is struggling against (he
|| struggles not against terrorism but for US terrorism).
||
Yes, that's what makes it even scarier. These guys are cavemen compared to the trilateralists.
(...)
||
|| In this ObL has the advantage that his strategy is actually
|| working, he is using and will continue to us attacks to draw in
|| US forces and destroy the regimes of the Middle East that have
|| been sustained by it. The US in the other hand is locked in a
|| struggle which cannot have an outcome, there is a severe
|| disconnection between its public aims and its methods and that
|| contradiction is irresolvable in this struggle (that is the
|| struggle Bush is actually waging).
||
You're implicitly accepting the ObL story, i.e. the official excuse for this imperialist war. 9-11 is just another Gulf of Tonkin.
As for the administration's public aims, they are notable for their unverifiability. The "war on terrorism" is described as an open-ended and partly covert project. There'll never be a PERT diagram for "Enduring Freedom". We'll never know when "terrorism" is defeated or even when the limited goal of killing ObL has been accomplished, especially if they use the tactical nukes they're itching to try out.
The real program of the "oiligarchy" (1) in power has been summed up by its principal ideologue Cheney as "go where the oil is". It is a frighteningly simplistic project which presupposes that the Taliban can be defeated either politically or militarily and that the popular upheavals that this will provoke can be contained by the client regimes in the region. The authors of this brain-dead scheme are now in disarray. Cheney and Bush have left the (mis)management of the war to the generals. Cheney is unable to produce an alternative strategy. Rumsfeld, who seems to be a better military thinker, is not part of the inner circle. Powell the multilateralist has likewise been sidelined from the start.
The "ObL strategy" OTOH is nothing more than the repressed rage of the South. ObL is a symbol, albeit one that fulfils its function to perfection. He's no more a mastermind than Che was for third-world liberation struggles.
|| Bush has to draw in as much of the International force he can
|| muster, maintaining it is a struggle against an opposite force
|| pulling from below and from above which wants a move towards a
|| real international civility where the US becomes a nation among
|| many.
In a North-South war, the "pull" of "international civility" on the US will be, I fear, little more effective than than opposition of France and a few other European countries to the Vietnam war. It's the EU's big chance to make a difference and show it can stand up to the US but I'm afraid they'll fudge and cave as usual.
|| It is a battle towards exhaustion. The critical point
|| will be the first, however minor, defeat of US military forces
That's already happened: US special forces got whipped badly at Mollah Omar's base and the Taliban probably did shoot down a chopper loaded with troops, the remains of which US planes promptly obliterated to destroy the evidence of the US defeat. The only critical point was when the US killed the first Afghans, as opposed to Qaeda Arabs. Once you kill Afghans, whether combatant or not, you're fighting a nation, as Brzezinski rightly pointed out to CNN. Only it goes much further than that.
|| (not another terrorist attack on the US which will momentarily
|| strengthen, fatally, US resolve). At that point the Middle East
|| is likely to erupt and then things are really going to get out of hand.
As long as the media is held on a leash US resolve is unlikely to change. People in the US are bored with the propaganda but they wiolently object to being shown the truth (Al Jazeera) as well. The bible-crazy nation that the US has become is predisposed to manipulation by religious or political evangelists.
Final note: As the US embarks on the road to fascism, the Bush administration has already prepared its defence - an armed one, of course - against an eventual Nurenberg. Gary Ashwill posted this:
>From Al-Ahram
http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/558/4war1.htm
(snip)
Meanwhile, the US State Department -- taking advantage of the frenzy and confusion that followed the terrorist acts -- endorsed the American Service-members Protection Act (ASPA) on November 5. The legislation authorises the US to use force to "liberate" any US or allied persons detained on behalf of the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC), which will be based in The Hague, Netherlands. It also prohibits US military assistance to those states that ratify the ICC treaty except for NATO members and some major non-NATO allies.
1) Don!t take "oiligarchy" too seriously. Although Exxon's Condy and Halliburton's Cheney point in that direction, you also have the Bush connection to defence contractor Carlyle, and of course everyone gets a piece of the Pentagon cake, from Detroit to Palo Alto.
Hakki