[WS:] Iraq was just a prop, not the goal. I recall reading an argument ("Rise of the Vulcans") that the whole Bush revolution was a coup of foreign policy hawks, many of them relics of the Nixon admin, who were unhappy with the detente turn that the US foreign policy took since Vietnam and had beef with Kissinger and epigons in the foreign policy establishment. They were planning for a long time to orchestrate an event showing that the US had a big dick again (pun intended) and Iraq was their punching boy of choice. They saw an opportunity when an inexperienced conservative president took office (senior Bush apparently was to shrewd to buy this.)
This, btw, fits the mold of the 'conservative reaction' described by Corey Robin - which is about power showdown not money making. I am surprised that he did not pick that up in his chapter on the Bush admin, and focused on their propaganda instead.
So what they won was assertion of their conservative foreign policy and beating the "chatterbox on the Potomac" into submission, which allow the to pass many reactionary "counter-terrorism" policies. Why do you think they made such a big deal of military tribunals and torture?
Wojtek
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 2, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
>> But the Iraq adventure had minimal effect on oil flows and
>> prices. I do not buy Chomsky's argument you quoted, but I do not
>> think Iraq was "about oil" for the sake of global capitalism either.
>> Methinks it was about a political chess game that the Bush admin
>> played and won.
>
> You may be right about Iraq - I was talking about the last 50+ years. But won? What did the US win in Iraq exactly?
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>