[lbo-talk] Waterboarding etc.

[SA]

Michael Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:32:02 -0500
> SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>   
>> For example, the assumption seems to be that Obama is surging forces 
>> into Afghanistan now because this is somehow an imperative for running 
>> "the empire." As far as I can tell, though, Obama is doing it just 
>> because he promised he would in the campaign. And he made the promise as 
>> a way to signal to the electorate that he wasn't a peacenik, in light of 
>> his pledge to withdraw from Iraq. As far as aggrandizing an American 
>> empire is concerned, I can't think of a place less relevant to doing 
>> that than Afghanistan. (During the Cold War, Afghanistan was the 
>> standard example people would cite of a place that was strategically 
>> irrelevant for America. We ended up sponsoring the Mujahideen to give 
>> the Soviets their own Vietnam; what we're doing today is more likely to 
>> end up giving ourselves one.)
>>     
>
> Irrelevant Afghanistan, then, has cropped up twice in my lifetime 
> as a theater of great-power activity, and famously attracted the Brits' 
> attention during their tenure as top country. It's odd, isn't it, how 
> these imperialists keep getting themselves distracted by irrelevancies. 
>   

Yup, it is. The first time in our lifetime it was because 
fundamentalists were threatening a pro-Soviet government there, so the 
Soviets invaded. They did that because Afghanistan is relevant for 
*Russia*: It was right on the Soviet border and it had the potential to 
stir up Islamic fundamentalism within the USSR. The US sponsored the 
fundamentalists - again because Afghanistan is relevant for *Russia*. 
They wanted to give Moscow a black eye.

The second time - you'll never believe this - Afghanistan happened to be 
harboring terrorists who attacked New York and Washington. If it had 
been Angola that was harboring the terrorists, the same thing would 
probably have happened there. (Another strategically irrelevant place we 
got involved in in our lifetimes, incidentally.) As for the British, 
Afghanistan was definitely relevant to them because they really cared 
about India. As soon as Michelle Obama is crowned Empress of India, I 
promise I'll acknowledge the vital strategic importance of Afghanistan 
to the United States.


> I'm not sure I quite understand the argument that SA is making here. 
> The _public_ wants these wars (Story Of O is just keeping a campaign 
> promise)? Or do the managers of the nation just somehow blunder 
> into these things,

I'd suggest thinking about it the same way you think about Obama's 
domestic policy. Why is he blundering into a multi-billion dollar 
stimulus package? Tax cuts? Bank bailout? Health care overhaul? Why is 
he blundering into not recognizing gay marriage or requiring hedge fund 
registration? Are all these things in the president's "job description"? 
Would John McCain have done all of them identically, since after all the 
president's imperial "employers" have certain expectations? Or are these 
things done as the result of a process that involves Obama's own 
personal preferences and desires, interacting with the preferences of 
voters, lobbies, and policy intellectuals? (I.e., just how it looks like 
on teevee.)

SA