[lbo-talk] 2004-8 (Out of Iraq)

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Wed Oct 6 18:45:19 PDT 2004


Marvin Gandall marvgandall at rogers.com, Wed Oct 6 17:41:47 PDT 2004:
>Yoshie confidently asserts:
>>
>>Whether George W. Bush or John Kerry gets elected, the next POTUS
>>will have to run in 2007-8 on the record of four more years of
>>wars, occupations, and economic woes. Rather than expecting Bush
>>and Kerry to spell out the deadline of US troop withdrawal from
>>Iraq, which neither will...
>
>Why are you so certain that Kerry or Bush "will have to" invade and
>occupy Iran and North Korea -- the imminent "wars and occupations"
>you must have in mind? Or were you perhaps thinking of Venezuela and
>Cuba, or all four at once? And why are you so sure neither Kerry nor
>Bush will withdraw American forces from Iraq, either voluntarily
>after stabilizing the country under a client regime, or because they
>are forced to by the armed resistance?
>
>Four more years of war(s) and occupation(s) is quite an ambitious
>agenda for a ruling class which already feels trapped in Iraq,
>wouldn't you agree? Clearly, you believe US and Western capitalism
>is in terminal crisis and has exhausted its traditional
>neocolonialist economic and political control mechanisms, leaving
>naked military predation as the only option available to it to
>secure global markets and resources. Is this not what your statement
>implies?

I said "four more years of wars, occupations, and economic woes," not "four more years of new large-scale wars, occupations, and economic woes."

Whether Bush or Kerry gets elected, the occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine will continue, with counter-insurgency war in Iraq likely escalating; and the counter-insurgency wars elsewhere in which Washington has gotten directly involved -- such as those in Colombia ("The United States provided training to almost 13,000 Colombian soldiers in 2003, almost 4,000 more than it provided to Iraqis and almost 8,000 more than to Afghans. Moreover, the administration has pushed Congress to increase the 400-man legislative ceiling on the number of U.S. troops and contractors operating in Colombia in order to increase training and other operations in country" [Jim Lobe, " Aid Grows to Latin American Military," October 6, 2004, <http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=25750>]) and the Philippines (Pepe Escobar, "All Quiet on the Second Front," October 7, 2004, <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FJ07Ae02.html>) -- will also continue. That's what I meant by "four more years of wars, occupations, and economic woes."

As I argued in a previous message <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20041004/022589.html>, the US military's manpower capacity has become stretched to the point that, barring the last resort of conscription, Washington will have to relinquish its military hold on Europe and East Asia (especially the troops stationed in Germany and South Korea). It can barely continue the occupation of Iraq as it is, and it cannot afford any new big invasion and occupation requiring additional hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground.

What Washington can still afford to initiate is a missile strike against Iran and things of that nature. Barack Obama's recent remarks on the subject are instructive.

<blockquote>In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of "surgical" missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington's demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation's nuclear arsenal.

Obama, the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention, is being hailed as a "rising star" in the Democratic Party. In his Tribune interview, he said explicitly what is implicit in repeated statements by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and other party leaders. They have frequently attacked the Bush administration's policy in Iraq on the grounds that it is diverting attention from supposedly greater threats, in particular Iran and North Korea.

Obama told the Tribune, "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?"

Answering his own question, Obama said, "I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point." (Tom Mackaman, "Democratic keynote Speaker Barack Obama Calls for Missile Strikes on Iran," October 1, 2004, <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml>)</blockquote>

If that's the voice of the great Black hope of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, you can imagine what the other wing is ready to do. -- Yoshie

* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list