On May 28, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Marvin Gandall wrote:
> Were your examples above typically reservations expressed in
> private or open
> criticism of government preparations for war? In the case of Iraq,
> I think
> it's clear that the differences within the ruling class were openly
> sharply expressed to an unprecedented degree, and not only from
> Democrats, but more notably by Scowcroft and other veterans of the
> Republican establishment.
On WW I, I don't know; I'll ask my friend who's doing the diss on it. On the Civil War, it was all quite in the open - though once the South fired on the North, the NYC bourgeoisie turned into superpatriots and vowed to crush the slavocracy. On Iraq, much of it was in the open. The general principle, I think, is that capitalists usually defer to the state; they may not support a war before it starts, but once it does, it becomes part of the status quo.
Iraq points to the problem I've been talking about for a while - the lack of a coherent ruling class in the U.S. today. How could they "stop" the war when Bush, Cheney & Co. were in control of the state. There are ways to destroy a leadership through scandal and general bad press, but once a war has started, no one wants the home team to lose - and it's not like they had an alternative roster and strategy in reserve.
For someone practically on the belief that the Council on Foreign Relations is a major architect of U.S. foreign policy, it's quite something to hear the CFR audience and guests moan about the weakened role of the U.S. today. And for now, there's not much they can do about it.