[lbo-talk] Re:Chomsky on ending occupation

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 23 13:05:01 PDT 2003


What Chris doesn't get is that an Iraq broken and kneeling before an effective US (or other) occuoying govt, fully opened to multinational exploitation, totally privatized, and generally dominated and humiliated -- but with some degree of law and order -- would be considerable improvement on the current Hobbesean war of all against all. But we can demand something better. The US not going to withdraw and it is not going to allow an honest interim govt to be set up. It is as naiuve to think the fortmer as the latter. But it ought to do both: So, I stand by my position: withdraw, and set up an transition govt. jks

--- Chris Kromm <ckromm at mindspring.com> wrote:
> The "we broke it, we should fix it" position -- in
> all its permutations -- relies on the astonishly
> naive faith that U.S. forces will do anything
> approximating "fixing it" if they stay. That may be
> the happy vision of a few generous souls on this
> list, but bears no resemblance to the agenda of the
> U.S. occupiers, who happen to be the ones calling
> the shots for the forseeable future.
>
> Bremer has been very clear about the mission of the
> occupation: to fully transform Iraq into a country
> hospitable to multinational corporate interests.
> This isn't ultra-left propaganda. At a recent talk,
> Bremer specifically said the U.S. "would not leave"
> until barriers to foreign investment were
> dismantled; oil, water and other vital industries
> and resources were privatized, and the country was
> otherwise handed over to multinational capital. That
> is the driving aim -- and will be the only
> consequence -- of continued occupation.
>
> Of course Iraq and Vietnam are very, very different.
> But the content of the Chomsky quote I originally
> posted, I think, remains irrefutable. What will
> happen if the U.S. ends the occupation and leaves is
> anybody's guess. But we *know* that continued
> occupation is a recipe for violence, exploitation
> and death, and will fuel anti-U.S. sentiment, making
> us less secure.
>
> Occupation also has the disadvantage of being
> against self-determination and other left values.
> "Internationalism" sounds nice (nicer than
> "imperialism"), but has gone wrong as frequently as
> (or probably more than) it's gone right. On the
> left, we'd do well to set the bar very high in
> making the case for intervention. Strategically, I
> think great sections of the U.S. population are now
> ready to be mobilized around the idea that we must
> Get Out Now.
>
> So I'll stand by the slogan: U.S. Out of Iraq!
>
> Chris Kromm
> Free Iraq!
> www.unitedforpeace.org

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list