On Jan 31, 2012, at 3:09 AM, Tahir Wood wrote:
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>> So the incorrect analysis No Blood for Oil is after all more correct than
>> any quibbles with it are.
>
> You don't have to agree with the slogan to have opposed the Iraq war, you know.
>
>
> T: I in fact agree with the slogan, but there is a more important point, and that is that imperialist foreign policy decisions are always multi-factoral in nature. There is never one single underlying cause. For example, I think a factor in all of America's military strategies since (and including) Hiroshima have been demonstrative in nature. They are all to some extent about shock and awe and saying to the world, don't get out of line, see what we can do.
Yup, that's crucial. Ditto Iran today.
I'm very persuaded by the Panitch/Gindin argument in their forthcoming book on US power that the U.S. doesn't aim to "control" Middle Eastern oil out of national interest - with the strange corollary that the U.S. wants to be able to limit oil supplies to potential enemies (wouldn't it be easier to accomplish that with a blockade than trying to "control" a huge, messy chunk of earth?) - but out of an interest in broad systemic stability. Any interruption in flow would mess up the entire world economy, and that must be prevented. The "no blood for oil" slogan seems to subscribe to the national interest view.
Doug