That's not how I read the article. BW's concern is not the morality of the war, to be sure. But BW is concerned that the war and the effect on international alliances and agreements will be bad for business -- and what is good for business is after all BW's brief. So I don't see BW as saying, damn, too bad they couldn't sell this great policy! Bur rather, a policy this disruptive is bad for the interests of the business community for which we speak.
NB, have people noticed that this is a case for relative autonomy. Despite the importance of oil in this equation, the war and the US hegemonic drive is decidedly NOT reflecting the wishes or interests of the big bourgeoisie. This is state-driven, primarily.
jks
Chuck Grimes <cgrimes at rawbw.com> wrote: Business Week - March 24, 2003 BEYOND THE WAR By Bruce Nussbaum Commentary: The High Price of Bad Diplomacy Mismanaging the runup to war will do more than squander goodwill and damage alliances...
--------------
What I find fascinating is the spin, that the basic problem with the Bush administration is the failure of its diplomacy. It is as if the problem with insane war mongering proto-fascist thugs running the US government is their inept marketing. With a better sales team all world order would be restored.
Yes indeed, the problem with a pointless offensive attack on Iraq isn't its pointlessness, or its offense to international law, its evident violation of the UN charter and its impeding murder of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of completely innocent people, no that is not the problem.
The problem is marketing.
Evidently Business Week is worried that the world is not just another market and that war isn't just another product. I am sure with a different exposure profile, better pre-market strategies, and a better sales team we could have sold it...
Chuck Grimes
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030316/6c531773/attachment.htm>