Marvin Gandall wrote:
>
>
> You converge with Yoshie and Carrol in arguing that Iraq is a "low cost"
> affair
I've said nothing one way or the other about the cost of the war but rather of the cost of leaving the Mideast, which is nothing less than the failure, complete failure, of the u.s. imperial project. The U.S. can _not_ do that. It is incoherent.
which has not resulted in a deep split within the US defence and
> foreign policy establishment and that, as such, the US can afford to remain
> in the country for a long time. In fact, this seems to me to betray an
> underlying pessimism and despair and exaggeration of US power which the
> three of you share in common, and a profound misreading of how costly the
> occupation has been to the US in the military, political, and economic
> sense.
My main disagreement with you _is_ over the strength of u.s. capitalism
and/or the weakness of the u.s. working class. That is at the basis, for
example, of my rejection of your views of the DP and of left relations
to the DP.
>
> The US ruling class has been very divided - not of course over objectives,
> ie. whether the US should play a hegemonic role in world affairs, but over
> tactics.
Sharp differences of opinion, yes. But when you admit that there is no division over the necessity of u.s. hegemony you also, from my point of view, admit that withdrawal from the Mideast is not an issue. Differences are over how to stay there. There is undoubtedly real rage at the Bush administration for putting an army into Iraq. Op-ed wankery to the contrary, there is no indication of willingness to withdraw it now that it is there.
A real division in a ruling class is the mark of a pre-revolutionary situation.
Carrol