On 2012-01-31, at 2:21 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> 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.
Ditto here also. When the war broke out, as I recall, Carrol was part of the NBFO camp which claimed that it was all about securing basing rights in Iraq to control the country and the region's oil reserves. Others of us suggested it was part of a broader militaristic turn in US foreign policy to "shock and awe" Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and other anti-imperialist regimes into compliance with US policy as defined by the new Bush administration and enforced by Rumsfeld's "New Model Army." The immediate regional consideration was to remove the Baathist regime, the strongest Arab supporter of the Palestinian "rejectionists", as an obstacle to to an Israel/US-dictated peace deal with the PA.
Of course, as it turned out, the hubristic Bush administration overestimated US power and was forced to retreat after having expended much more blood and treasure than it remotely expected, and without having accomplished any of its major objectives. It failed to install a puppet government under Chalabi or to secure large-scale permanent basing rights or to win favoured treatment for its oil firms in Iraq. It has no greater control of Mideast oil supplies today than it had before the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the adventure arguably weakened rather than strengthened its role as global capitalist cop. If I'm not mistaken, Carrol continued to go against the current by trumpeting the invasion as a victory for US imperialism, but maybe I'm doing him an injustice here.
The biggest deterrent to war with Iran today - whether provoked by a blockade or aerial strikes - is precisely the effect this would have on the supply and price of oil and and the precarious US and global economy.