1. The decision to invade Iraq was pushed by Republicans but with full collusion of the Democrats. This immediately puts a hole in the argument that the Democrats now have a majority and will do something different. Why would they ? Their election platform was NEVER about withdrawal. It was about letting the Republicans fuck up and let the people vote for the "lesser evil". The people will never realize that Democrats have the same position on Iraq as the Republicans barring some "tactical" differences (i.e. Democrats would not want to be so brazen about torture and genocide)
2. What are US objectives in Iraq ? Some of the main objectives are (This geopolitical strategy is common to both Republicans and Democrats i.e United States foreign policy as a whole)
- Control of a vital region in the Middle East via setting up of a friendly regime and military bases. The US can then use Iraq as leverage to put the "Old Europe" and other strong economic blocs (China, Japan etc.) at bay.
- Control implies geopolitical dominance in that region as well as control over scarce resources (oil)
- Have complete control of all decision making in the "Democratic" process in Iraq by virtue of a "constitutional fiction"
4. What would withdrawal from Iraq mean ? From the American perspective, it would mean loss of control over one of the most important regions in the world. This would almost certainly relegate the United States to a second-rate superpower given its already titanic-like economy. Withdrawal would almost certainly mean the end of the US as an economic and political superpower. The only dimension in which the US currently dominates is military power. The logical consequence of this is that America will try its level best to use it 's military might to control the world. It no longer has economic or political leverage. America has no "alternative" but to use its "iron fist" to tame the "savages" in the rest of the world. On the domestic front, a rapidly deflating housing market, falling dollar if coupled with an Iraq withdrawal would almost certainly lead to a deep recession.
5. Always remember that in an American "democracy", what people want DOES NOT matter. It is quite obvious that Americans want the US out of Iraq. But foreign policy decisions are not ever made by the people. It is driven entirely by the elite establishment that is far removed from any semblance of democracy.
6. We already see the start of a media blitz against Iraq withdrawal.
Fewer troops, or more? (NYT)
US plans "last" big push in Iraq (Guardian)
7. Clearly, the American objectives (outlined in Point 2) have not yet been met in Iraq and will not be met anytime soon. Hence a withdrawal would be extremely unlikely (and by withdrawal I don't mean moving troops across the border). If indeed by some miracle, the US withdraws from Iraq before they setup a friendly slave-regime , it'll be the beginning of the end of American hegemony (see Point 4).
In the unlikely event of unprecedented public protests (more likely in the event of a prolonged deep recession), the powers already have everything covered via the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and so on. Any signs of local dissent will be crushed immediately and completely (what do you think hi-tech crowd control devices are for ?). Its no accident that we've seen the passage of so many draconian laws (What was that ? You say these laws are to fight terrorism ? Ha!). The main purpose is to crush even a sliver of public opposition to the arbitrary policies of the corporate state.
Notes:
1) For a detailed well-researched look at the extreme horrors that Iraq has been subjected to by various imperialist powers (as well as by home-grown dictators propped up by the imperial powers) since the fall of the Turkish Ottoman empire right up to the present, take the time to read this well written essay, Behind the War on Iraq by the Research Unit for Political Economy (I had to read it in parts because its too disturbing to read in one stretch). The Research Unit for Political Economy is based in Mumbai, India. It publishes the journal Aspects of India's Economy and a range of research publications in English and Hindi.
2) "Constitutional Fiction" comes from the words of Lord Curzon, the foreign secretary of Britain (from 1919-1924) who wanted in the Arab territories an “Arab facade ruled and administered under British guidance and controlled by a native Mohammedan and, as far as possible, by an Arab staff....There should be no actual incorporation of the conquered territory in the dominions of the conqueror, but the absorption may be veiled by such constitutional fictions as a protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer state and so on.”
3 comments:
Violence is not the American way ? You've got to be kidding ! Ignoring for a moment the violence committed against other countries, you might wish to read about the violent history of American labor. Unless you mean, the US never commits violence against its own upper class. Now that is certainly true.
Moreover, I agree that eventually a "partial physical" withdrawal will happen, but only after a consitutional fiction is setup. That is not the same as a real withdrawal (it is merely outsourcing the violence via a client state to very conveniently distance yourself from the violence). It is also instructive to look at the number of countries in which Amercan troops are stationed. Helping old ladies take out the garbage, no doubt.
And if you consider the current system to be a democracy, its instructive to make a comparative study with fascism and see which one is closer to the truth.
And it doesn't matter if people are dumb or not if they have no input into the decision making process. 40% voter turnout in the elections ? Now thats what I call a vanishing voter.
Ah bad, bad, had made a most eloquent comment 3 when during the sign in process the comment was lost.... foolish blogger not saving the text whilst I login.
So in a less eloquent way, violence against it's own folk is not the US way and those most likely to protest would indeed be more the educated and hence less likely victims of water hoses.
Also, it is unlikely that the folk most likely to protest will ever be annoyed to that point, primarily because politicians as the lowest known life form motivated only by the next election will realize that a change in position is necessary to strengthen their eletionability. This then will prevent the protests.
Lastly, if the lazy electorate is strong enough to push a few incumbents out of office in a mid term surely they will come out in more force to support the more rationale position. Assuming that one or both parties has wised up enough to switch to the more rationale position--this may be the bogey.
Good luck with your democracy, but unfortunately, whatever the NYT says is what is what is going to happen ...and right now, it doesn't appear to be pushing for a withdrawal ...Don't hold your breath ...
Post a Comment