Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >No significant element in the u.s. ruling structure gives a damn about
> >what happens to the Iraqi people.
>
> Of course not. But you can't pump oil when things are blowing up all
> over the place.
>
The scenario I proposed would not include such. Prior to the development of anti-biotics the aim of TB treatment was to 'wall' the infection off with calcium deposits in the lungs. Something analogous to that seems one of the possibilities in Iraq. (The treatment never really worked, but some, like my father & several of his friends, survived anyhow.)
I very much hope that my speculation is wholly wrong, and that you are right -- because it might be impossible to raise a significant domestic opposition to the type of occupation my waking nightmare images.
Also -- I have always seen u.s. mideast policy as aimed centrally at _control_ rather than at exploitation of the oil there. Of course 'they' want the oil very badly, but u.s. hegemony can be nicely maintained with the control offered by permanent large military bases there, and pacification of only some of the oil areas. Yhe Kurds would probably police their own area, for example.
Carrol