[OPE-L:8513] Re: Socialism and War

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 12:48:29 EST

Re Rakesh's [8510]:

> As my post indicated, I don't think this is a good analogy. The 
> nature of US interests in the Middle East is far different than in 
> Cuba, Grenada or Korea for that matter.  The US is not going to 
> war against Iraq simply because it will be easier to win than a war 
> against North Korea. 

Right, but what is required from a logistical military perspective
and the projected political fallout is something that they surely take into
> My point remains this:  I don't think that the US war drive can be 
> explained by the fact that the war itself will probably be quick and 
> successful and that a parade which will secure Bush's re-election 
> will follow.  It seems that you are accepting what can be called a 
> "domestic political" explanation for Bush's war drive. 

No, I am not asserting that 'domestic political' reasons are the 
*reason*  for Bush's drive to war.  Rather,  I am suggesting that 
the movement to the Right post 9/11 in the US has impacted
the *timing* of his plans to war.  That is, I do not think that 
domestic political considerations (e.g. a desire to get re-elected
a la 'wag the dog')  has been behind the war initiative.  But --
unquestionably  -- the political climate in the US has changed 
post-9/11 and this makes it more possible to move forward parts
of the Bush agenda that might otherwise have remained on the
back burner.

> I am arguing against both George's ideas 
> and an explanation which is weighted too heavily towards 
> domestic political considerations.  

You may be right about this.  What I find more unsatisfying with
George's analysis is his underplaying inter-imperialist rivalry.
In his talk, he also made the case that a characteristic of the 
G.W. Bush administration, in contrast to the Clinton administration,
is its movement towards unilateralism.  This doesn't make a 
whole lot of sense to me since the "New World Order" 
championed by his father posited multilateralism and a large role
for the UN.  I don't see G.W.'s  policy as a rejection of his
father's  _policy_ objectives.  The dispute among the imperialist
powers, in my view,  concerns strategic objectives rather than
just tactics.  I don't think that George, though, would necessarily 
agree with  that assessment. 

I've got to get off of the computer now so I can see fellow
listmember John M who is coming by my apartment for a chat
and lunch.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 27 2003 - 00:00:00 EST