> 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.
You link a troop withdrawal from Iraq to leaving the Middle East to a "complete failure of the US imperial project." You might have said the same thing about Vietnam. In fact, as you'll recall, many on both the left and the right did subscribe at the time to a domino effect in Asia and the impending global demise of US imperialism, which never happened. It won't happen if the US pulls out of Iraq either. The US reach isn't dependent on maintaining large armies abroad, particularly when they get bogged down under fire. The Empire relies predominantly on economic power and air power - part of why a military draft is not seen as necessary. That power will remain intact for the time being.
Some questions: 1) Did the US not control the Middle East before it occupied Iraq? 2) Why would it not continue to control the Middle East following the withdrawal of the bulk its forces from Iraq, even in the absence of basing rights? 3) Has the occupation strengthened or weakened the global position of US imperialism? 4) Will the US have the same access to resources and markets and the same trade relations with the region and the rest of the world as it does now if it leaves Iraq?
> 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.
I think the relationship of class forces in the US is heavily in favour of the capitalists. I don't know whether that means we're in agreement or not. In any case, I don't see what that has to do with my impression that for those US leftists who are politically active, the most fruitful arena of intervention would appear to be in or around the DP, where the bulk of American trade union and social movement activists are found. Some 140,000 union members actively canvassed for the Democrats during the past election, and if a left is ever going to be built in the US, it seems to me that's not a constituency to be airily dismissed or treated with contempt, as some on the left like yourself delight in doing.
> 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.
Show me where I've suggested that the US does not want to remain an imperial power - in the Middle East or elsewhere? Don't blame me for your misunderstanding.
> 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.
It is always useful to read the wankers to know what the ruling class is thinking. Some want to up the ante and more want to cut their losses, so it is just plain wrong to pretend that "there is no indication of willingness to withdraw". Tactical retreats are not uncommon in any struggle for power.
> A real division in a ruling class is the mark of a pre-revolutionary
> situation.
What's a "real" division? You recognize there are "sharp differences of opinion" and "undoubtedly real rage at the Bush administration" and this sounds very much like a split at the top to me, even though we are clearly not in a pre-revolutionary situation. But why quibble?