Marvin Gandall wrote:
>
>
> I don't agree the US can tolerate such "chaos" so long as their bases are
> secure. The US, above all, requires a STABLE Iraq. If there is widespread
> intercommunal fighting, there is no assurance US bases will not come under
> attack; they were attacked in Lebanon, as you know.
I hope you are correct. In fact, I assume you are here. But just as the Bush administration obviously misjudged how _their_ strategy would work, I hope (believe) that the 'saner' elements within the ruling circles (e.g., that warmonger H. Clinton) have misjudged how _their_ strategy will work.
But more importantly, I hoped my post would trigger discussion, both of Iraq & of left response to it. I am taking for granted that the task of leftists is to move toward the formation of a new left party or coalition of groups, and that such is essential for even a mild rebuff to the capitalist offensive of the last 30 years.
> But more to the point
> the US wants to dominate the region and its oil, and bringing the insurgency
> under control is essential.
The U.S. simply _cannot_ "dominate" the region as it (for example) dominated Latin America for most of the 20th century. Both colonialism and neo-colonialism are dead -- but that does _not_ indicate that imperialism (under u.s. hegemony for the time being anyhow) is dead or even wounded. The U.S. does not need _direct_ control of oil: it needs the only the power (a) to prevent any other nation from such control and (b) to shut off the supply of middle-eastern oil to any future 'enemy' or rival of u.s. imperial hegemony. Strong military bases without day-by-day control is sufficient for that.
I hope the Iraqi resistance can defeat that strategy as they have defeated the "democratization" strategy of the Bush Administration. But I think it is that imperial strategy that we should organize against. You are correct that we will fail if the Iraqi resistance fails. Nothing is sure.
But capital, not a particular administration, is our enemy.
Carrol