I think you are spot on in this, everything plays its parts, oil, "anti-terrorism" etc, but it is what part these things do play which is important. And I agree this muddle is best explained in terms of a muddle - it does not have a definite aim - "Imperial dignity" seems very much the central purpose but such a purpose could never be translated into any definite aim except the brutal display of power.
I am glad to see someone quoting a real authority, Pericles unlike modern imperials was not beyond clearly expressing intentions and is a good source (was this from Thucydides? - spelt wrong). And yes, by an ironic twist of history this imperial war is not being fought for imperialist gain but for the right to be imperialistic - I am not sure how many can pick up on the difference but it is profound and significant.
I cannot help but add that such an irony suggests an opposite power, Imperial Dignity being displayed to whom, a rival (is there one), the world (were we in any doubt) or the emergance of a super-imperialism (empire, international civility, whatever). My money is on the last. But having said this, what will the final form of such a thing be?
This is a question where the Display of Imperial Dignity has a real purpose perhaps. I cannot help thing that if the last Super-power gets its way we are indeed in a non-waking nightmare, for it will shape an Empire as bloody as any old Roman (or Greek for that matter). The alternative may not be a proletarian one, but may be one in which such powers can grow in something more fruitful than an slaughterhouse.
Again thanks for this posting which points more in the right direction than many I have read on this sorry business.
Greg Schofield Perth Australia
--- Message Received --- From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> To: pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:22:02 -0600 Subject: Re: [PEN-L:19660] WHERE IS THE VICTORY
ALI KADRI wrote:
>
> if the us is
> there to stay for oil and other strategic
> considerations, will this do it or is there more on
> the way.
Not being a mind reader, and motives _never_ being obvious in actions, I simply do not know what the motives or goals of the criminal assault on Afghanistan are.
The declared motives seem to have no connection whatever to the action -- that is surely "they" (policy makers) can't really believe that killing a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of Afghanistans will have any effect on terrorism. (Especially since terrorism is really difficult and occurs only sporadically, whether or not anything is done to prevent it).
Oil: This seems to be the favorite. It could be, but it also is hard to believe either (a) that such a fantastic enterprise as this war could be carried out for the advantage of one small sector of u.s. capitalists (it can't help more than one or two oil companies) or (b) that it is really necessary for the u.s. to have military control over the sources of its oil when all it needs is the money to buy it.
Sheer blundering incompetence: 'they' really don't know what they're doing or why. This tends to be my favorite.
Imperial Dignity: As Pericles recognized 2500 years ago, an imperial power has a tiger by the tail and has to keep a firm grip. Back in the '60s some marxist analysts argued that the U.S. was fighting in Vietnam for titanium, for offshore oil, or to provide a market for Japan so it wouldn't trade with China. (No one then seemed to have fear of Japanese exports to the U.S.) But probably it was imperial dignity (mixed with blundering) that moved that war -- that is fear that other peoples would emulate the Vietnamese. This I think is a more likely explanation than oil for the present war: 'they' aren't defending a particular reward of empire, they are defending the general right of empire.
Carrol