Angelus Novus wrote:
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Easy for you to say. It's very hard to imagine the
> > US political system ever accepting such a thing
> > gracefully.
>
> Do you really think there is such unity across the
> political spectrum? Agreed, there is broad,
> system-immanent unity about the fact that America is
> essentially a noble, good-hearted nation that deserves
> its place in the spotlight, but don't the Democrats
> squeak about how Bush has lost so much respect from
> the U.S.'s "allies" with his foreign policy?
Marvin Gandall and others remain optimistic about the ability and/or willingness of the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq. Athenian defenders of the Peleponnesian war (Pericles himself? I forget) used the analogy of riding a tiger: it was more dangerous to get off than to stay on. If Athens retreated, all the victims of its injustice would gang up on it. Empires are difficult to give up.
I think the whole u.s. establishment is (desperately perhaps & even reluctantly) pretty unified on the unthinkability of withdrawing from the Mideast, and for the time being and the forseeable future that means troops in Iraq -- and possibly even extension of the war into Iran. See C.G.Estabrook's post of last Wednesday under the subject Tribune Headline. A real withdrawal from the mideast could -- I think would -- lead to the unravelling of the u.s. empire, something the ruling class will not allow to happen even if its defense involves major nuclear war.
When Mao called the U.S. a Paper Tiger, many noted that it was a Paper Tiger with nuclear teeth. That remains true.
The political "doves" (to revive the old label for respectable anti-war politicians) like Murtha are mostly men & women of little vision from an imperial perspective. Obama (as described by Carl) represents something close to _the_ perspective of the empire's rulers.
Carrol