Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>>
> What's your point? We should just sit back and let the heavily armed
> duke it out? I can't figure out the take-away, as they say in the NGO
> world.
>
(It is difficult for me to believe that you, or anyone, could actually be serious when you write this kind of thing. That is why usually I do not answer them.)
"Let them duke it out?" Yes. That is exactly what the First International proposed that England should do during the U.S. Civil War, one of the bloodiest civil wars in history.
And who is the "we" you are speaking of? If you mean conscious opponents of u.s. imperialism, then you are speaking of a very small group, whose opinions will for the time being have no impact whatever. If that isn't your meaning for "we," then that puts your support of the D.P. presidential nominee in 2004 in an entirely different light.
And finally, eventually they _will_ duke it out, and in a very bloody fashion. That was made certain by the two previous u.s. interventions in Iraq: that which put Hussein in power and that which broke his power in the first Gulf War. And the longer that "duking it out" is delayed, the bloodier it will be. And of course there will be continual bloodshed in Iraq as long as the U.S. continues to intervene in Iraqi affairs.
Your opinion is harmless because it cannot affect affairs (exept _possibly_ by interfering with the growth of an anti-war movement in the u.s.). Such opinions can only affect u.s. policy if they are held by those inside the policy-making apparatus of the u.s. state or of the u.s. ruling class. But if it could affect policy, its effect, both in the short run and in the long run, would be the continuation (and probably intensification) of bloodshed in Iraq -- in fact, the results would be very similar to what the results in the u.s. would have been if England had interfered in the Civil War.
And of course, your opinion will be the _officially pronounced_ opinion of the administration (whether Bush or Kerry) that takes office January 20, 2005. They will tell us that it would be immoral for the u.s. to pull out its army and allow a "bloodbath" to occur.
For the next several years "we" (whoever or whatever) are going to continue to impose military rule (probably with the face of an Iraqi puppet) on Iraq, and whatever the overall balance of forces are in Iraq, the 5% necessary to maintain terrorist opposition to that regime clearly exists. And during those years, you are going to be talking to yourself in a mirror if you keep up this charade of asking what "we" should do there.
There are very few nations in the world powerful enough to maintain a combination of internal democracy and external resistance to the u.s. Cuba is the nearest approach to democracy that such nations can afford, and I doubt that any nation of geopolitical importance can allow that much democracy without being crushed by the U.S. The fates of Mossedegh, Arbenz, Juan Bosch, the Sandinistas, and many others around the world presage the fate of any 'third world' leader who is both a patriot and attempts to lead with democratic means. Chavez beware!
Carrol
Carrol
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk