<HTML> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> From: andie nachgeborenen The argument is not based in a priori Hobbesean assumptions about human nature but on observations of current developments in Iraq. I do not say that Iraqis lack the capacity for self govt, but that they may not get to exercise that capacity without the provision by some organized force of basic police and social services to start with. </BLOCKQUOTE> ^^^^^^^^^ CB: On Hobbes a priori, ok, although you mentioned Hobbes in a post that I didn't see until after I had sent mine mentioning Hobbes, so there might be something of the Hobbesian floating around, at least in our minds, about the situation or the characterization of the situation. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> A Marxist-Leninist like yourself should be the first person to appreciate that that sort of thing does not happen spontaneously, but requires organization, discipline, and enforcable rules. Right now there is no single group in Iraq that has the authority or power to impose that. the fundamentalist might be able to create a Taliban-like or Iranian-allied ministate in the Southeast, the Kurds might in the North -- but then the Turks would invade. As for the west, it would be Beriit time. </BLOCKQUOTE> ^^^^^^^^ CB: I thought I was making a Leninist point regarding the nature of the state. The state as primarily an agent of class rule as opposed to a neutral provider of order over chaos is straight out of _The State and Revolution_.  Anyway, the M-L approach would first focus more on classes , imperialism etc. and less on organization, discipline and rules. Maybe you are thinking about the need for a vanguard party to get out of the mess. This is all rather theoretical and wishful thinking ( by me) , because, as you say, no way the U.S. splits the scene.( let alone allows the organization of a vanguard party - smile)  But if you ask me what I wish, I'd say , yea, U.S. out now unconditionally; well with the condition that the Bush tax cuts for the rich are reversed, their taxes increased, and the money is sent to Iraq for food and all necessities of life for the next 20 years. And while they are at it, send the same to Viet Nam and North Korea. Might have to increase the taxes on the rich a little more even, and add a big tax increase on corporations above a certain size. We need 1950 type tax rates and schedules. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> The civil war in Lebanon was, btw, an example of bad anarchy. There's a lot of that in Africa now. Going back some, read Thucydides on the Plague of Athens.</BLOCKQUOTE> ^^^^^^^^ CB: Well, I might be '"semanticizing", but if anarchy is lack of a state, I'd say the wars you mention involved states and were not anarchy.  Can't have wars without states. How about the U.S. Civil War ? I guess what you mean by bad anarchy is what I'd call civil war.  Yes, there seems a possibility of civil war in Iraq if the U.S. withdraws. Maybe this is the test, as Yoshie says on the UN involvement. What do Iraqis want in their overwhelming majority ? U.S. out now unconditionally or U.S. in setting up an interim government ? If they choose the former and it results in civil war, I still feel like I would be exercising the exigencies of the White Man's Burden to "overrule" the Iraqis' choice. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> So, the slogan "Out Now, and That's All," is a recipe for chaos, bad anarchy, endless war, and unfinite suffering. jks </BLOCKQUOTE> ^^^^^^^^^ CB: I say that not all this can be said with certainty.  Chaos ? There's chaos in the U.S.A., and the U.S. is in charge here. Bad anarchy seems to mean civil war. Yes, seems a real possibility. _Endless_ war ? Je le doute. The war ended in Lebanon and Athens. It will end in Africa.  War won't end in Iraq until the U.S. leaves Iraq alone. Infinite suffering ? Well, this is a rhetorical point, ok. There has been infinite suffering by the actions of the U.S. in relation to Iraq for the last 13 years - in fact, in that they built up Hussein, for much longer than that. I predict that continued U.S. occupation and U.S. organization of the next Iraqi regime will continue that infinity. U.S. hands off Iraq ! End war and infinite suffering ! </HTML>