> Against that view, and that quoted from Yoshie, I'll put forward the
> worries of Paul Volcker and some Wall Street types I heard at the CFR
> last week. They think the Iraq war has damaged U.S. interests in the
> world. But there seems to be a view that the US gov never makes a
> mistake, never damages itself, and never operates against the
> interests of US capital.
I can't speak for Yoshie, but the point of view I'm advancing is not too dissimilar from the one you cite Volcker espousing. It's difficult for me to see how the Iraq war, in any concrete, immediate way, benefited the Empire. I do think there are some general advantages for 'em to the fascistization of society, but I don't think that's why they did it. It's too long-term, too structural, even too notional, to be an immediate objective. When it happens they like it, and every chance they get at the margin to advance it a notch or two, they take. But as noted earlier, it seems unlikely that they started a war with this outcome in mind.
I don't have a problem personally acknowledging that "US govt [can] make a mistake." What I'd like to understand better is the 'how' -- how and why they made this one. Because it seems like a doozy. I find it very hard to believe that they themselves bought the nonsense they put out for public consumption. That explanation really does seem to sell them a little too short.
I'm getting the strange slightly surreal feeling that everybody else in this conversation agrees that this is a non-question, but no two people agree on _why_ it's a non-question.
God, I love the Left.