Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> {CLIP] And three, this makes it sound like
> aggressive war wasn't his raison d'etre -- that he could take it or leave
> it. . . .
Is the Iraq War 'just' an expression of motives more or less specific to the Bush Administration and the interests of the particular factions of capital it represents -- _or_ are its aggressive actions (Afghanistan and those to come) more deeply grounded in the dynamic of u.s. imperialism? (The verbosity of the question is a reflection of my not knowing exactly what it is I want to ask.) More crudely: Is the U.S. _forced_ to become more openly aggressive in the world. Someone said of Napoleon, "He has to be always doing something." (Not accurate -- quoted from memory.) Is this now true of the U.S. position in the world?
(These questions presuppose that imperialism is the mode of existence of modern capital, not a choice or a policy. They ask whether that mode of existence has become more constrained in its policies.)
Carrol