[lbo-talk] From False Ideas to Correct Practice

Carrol Cox cbcox at ilstu.edu
Mon Jan 30 10:54:06 PST 2012


"No Blood for Oil" was a slogan on many signs in2003. That analysis was probably incorrect, since the U.S. had no need for Iraq's oil. But 2003 was also one of those occasions in which the old song holds unambiguously and without stuttering nuances: Which side are you on? That was the only "idea" that counted. And those waving "No Blood for Oil" had answered that question right.

And it wasn't even that wrong at a deeper level. Anyone who thinks U.S. policy in the Middle East is not (for 60 years) spelled OIL has nothing interesting to say on the Iraq War. The variations in that policy (OIL) are endless, and worth exploring, but not if they are counterposed to full commitment, without Nuance, to Bring the Troops Home Now. That is a given from a century of struggle, and thinking _begins_ with it, begins inside the movement it drives, as those in the movement gain a greater and greater understanding of the innumerable interconnections of U.S. imperial policy with the domestic economy, with the fight to preserve democracy at home, and so forth.

So the incorrect analysis No Blood for Oil is after all more correct than any quibbles with it are.

Carrol



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list