[lbo-talk] Bush Backs Away From 2 Key Ideas of Panel on Iraq

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

On 12/8/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > Bush's invasion would then be a
> > tactical, not strategic, mistake. The goal is to clean up the tactic
> > while holding to the strategy of controlling mideast oil &
> > geopolitical
> > importance.
>
> Oh I agree that it's a tactical, not a strategic mistake. But it's
> always possible that the U.S. could really be suffering a serious
> defeat that ends in a reduction or even loss of "control" of Middle
> East oil. What would happen, say, if a chain of chaotic events led to
> the fall of the Saudi monarchy? All hell could break loose.

Most of the US power elite probably think that, if the US troops left
Iraq "without honor," Arabs get emboldened and may topple
pro-Washington governments in the region, including the Saudi
monarchy, even though staying in Iraq might raise the likelihood of
"all hell breaking loose" higher.  That's why they are likely to
wrangle for years and years, in search of "peace with honor," or "a
new, feasible
plan of our own" in the words of Kenneth M. Pollack.

Americans need to stand up and, through their actions, make the power
elite understand that there is no such plan, nor do they want one.
But that won't come easily to them.  They are trained to look to the
power elite for change.
-- 
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>