[WS:] But that hardly explains what those aims are, except perhaps in a circular fashion (Why did they do it? Because it was their aim? And how do we know it was their aim?? Because they did it.)
I find it rather difficult to talk about aims of individuals (they change depending on the situation), so any idea of aims of a collective entity, even narrowly defined (cf. foreign policy establishment) strikes me as exercise in futility. I really find it difficult to think of "aims" of US foreign policy as much of it seems rather incoherent and going against the interests of the usual suspects (assorted capitalists and their henchmen.)
Take Cuba, for example. The US "policy" toward this country strikes me as sheer nonsense that serves no imaginable aim (as Cuba poses no threat to anyone, let alone the United States.) What is more, this "policy" hurts many US capitalists who would love to do business with this country and exploit their competitive advantage. Se here we are, a policy that seems to serve no imaginable purpose and hampers the members of the capitalist ruling elite, and yet is stubbornly pursued by the so-called "policy establishment." Why?
This seems to suggest that the so-called US foreign policy is not a purposeful action that serves some defined aims or interests, but as the rest of the public life in this country - it is an outcome of the paralysis and inability to break a deadlock created by idiotic partisan politics.
Stated differently, staying in course may cost this country dearly, yet changing it may create a slight comparative disadvantage to the party that instituted that change. As a result, nobody makes a move as everyone goes to hell in a handbasket.
This, btw, puts a different light on Bush's policies. Far from being "stupid" - it shows true mastery in this paralyzed by idiotic partisanship environment. The POTUS can hardly do anything of substance on the domestic arena, because this will likely to be derailed by the Congress or the courts. The only exception is foreign policy, where the POTUS has a significant freedom of action without the need of congressional approval.
So what does Bush do? He exercises this freedom and then uses it to leverage compliance from the Congress on his domestic agenda. He starts a war, which he can de facto do without a Congressional approval - and then uses the state of war to blackmail his congressional opponents and lead that entire chatterbox on a leash like a puppy toward his domestic policy agenda.
Pretty clever, huh?
If this analysis is correct, it demonstrates how devoid of anything that resembles a coherent aim the US polity has become. It is so internally paralyzed by partisan politicking that no aim can be effectively pursued, except perhaps by super-ordinary means, like declaring a war. But that is like using a cannon to shoot a fly, because Uncle Sam cannot swat the pesky thing anymore as most normal people would.
Wojtek
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Michael Pollak wrote:
> >
> > Juan Cole has a wonderful little smasher-of-the-common-wisdom argument
> > today concerning Israel's 1981 bombing raid that destroyed Saddam's
> Osirak
> > reactor. It's relevant because the comparison is coming up a lot now that
> > the Iranian Bushehr reactor is coming on line. I excerpt:
>
> But this proves itself beside the point. The U.S. war planners as well
> as the Israelis know this -- they don't need Cole to tell them And
> since they know this, but are still waging war (sanctions) on Iran,
> clearly their purposes have nothing to do with Iranian nuclear
> intentions. The whole topic is irdrelevant as a perspective on U.S.
> foreign policy except to reveal for the nth time the sharp split between
> real and announced aims of that policy.
>
> Carrol
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>