What I said is this: "Who said that such a [pro-Washington] regime would be viable or that Washington could pacify Iraq? If Washington had wanted a stable Iraq, it would have lifted its economic sanctions on it and encouraged American investors to compete with French, Russian, and other investors for a chance to invest in its oil industry, instead of starving and then invading the country" (<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050523/010967.html>). Washington doesn't want a stable regime if the regime in question is not of the sort that it thinks is in its interest, correctly or incorrectly. Washington would risk the chaos of war (e.g., Iraq) or subversion (e.g., Venezuela), believing that it can create a new stable regime that is more to its liking than the one that it replaces, but it can't always have its way. Firstly, Washington's estimation of its own interest may be mistaken; secondly, others (guerrillas, Sadrists, France, Turkey, etc.) may directly and indirectly sabotage its goal; thirdly, Washington's finance is not what it used to be; and fourthly, an all-volunteer military is not made for a deadly and protracted counter-insurgency war on a large scale. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Monthly Review: <http://monthlyreview.org/> * 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/>