I suspect that Carrol and Dennis are using different yardsticks for measuring "victory."
Carrol is right, in that US had managed to establish a military beachhead for itself in Iraq, that it seems most loathe to give up.
However, Dennis is right too. If the US should have anymore such "victories," its days as a global superpower may be over faster than we think.
I also don't think that the US will succeed in pacifying Afghanistan. If the Soviets couldn't do it, and the Brits at the height of their empire couldn't do it, why should anyone expect the Americans to do any better?
Jim F.
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:41:07 -0800 (PST) dredmond at efn.org writes:
> On Sun, December 13, 2009 2:31 pm, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that so far the Bush/Obama Administration is a
> roaring
> > success. U.S. troops are (for the time being) permanently
> established in
> > Iraq
>
> The US is leaving next summer, with its imperial tail between its
> legs.
> The Maliki government, a modified version of Iran's theocracy, has
> been
> handing out oil concessions to Lukoil, CNPC and various European
> firms.
> The war on Iraq broke the back of the US military, cost $708 billion
> and
> at least 40,000 US casualties, and forever alienated the global
> semi-periphery.
>
> The war on Afghanistan isn't being lost, it is *already* lost. The
> Afghans
> will not accept foreign rule, and that's that.
>
> -- DRR
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
____________________________________________________________ Banking Click here to find the perfect banking opportunity! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=JTW9vJIwZEDmNmPZaerMsQAAJ1DoEMrytxsVXKlEh0tvqeWlAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAXeAAAAAA=