Bigger than Bushes- a Macro look at F911

[teryang]

http://www.counterpunch.org/rosenthal07032004.html

Michael Moore's F9/11
The Problem is Bigger than the Bushes
By STEVEN ROSENTHAL
and JUNAID AHMAD

<During the past three decades, the U.S. has declined economically relative to its major capitalist competitors. With the return of capitalism to Russia and China, there are more competitors, and there is no communist enemy against whom all major capitalist countries can unite. Thus, a declining U.S. imperialism faces increasing competition from its imperialist rivals. Most of the rest of the world more or less sees current global conflicts in this way, and thus they view the U.S. attempt to seize Iraq as an aggressive attempt by the U.S. to solve its worsening economic problems through military aggression. The U.S. attempt to prevent its competitors from gaining a foothold in the Iraqi oil business was clearly not in the interests of French, German, Russian, Chinese, or Japanese imperialists, which explains why the U.S. could not get those governments to sign on to the U.S. seizure of Iraq, no matter how much bribery and intimidation the U.S. tried to apply.

Imperialist rivalry was at the root of the two world wars of the 20th century, and it could lead to a third world war, especially if the already shaky global capitalist economy experiences a severe crisis like the Great Depression of the 1930s. Thus, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is an imperialist war. That is something much bigger than the corrupt war profiteering of Halliburton or the sleazy relationships between Saudi capitalists and the Bush family. It is much bigger than the ideological fantasies of the clique of neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration. Michael Moore has revealed a limited aspect of a much larger problem. The Bush clique exemplifies the true character of capitalist imperialism in this period, but the problem is the system as a whole, not just a few arrogant corrupt liars. <snip>

[bemildred]

1. Interesting, but stuck in the past.

Real war does not work in the presence of WMD.
Hence there will be no real war between powers with WMD.
Other methods are being used, and US military power is
impotent to do squat about it, and the US governing class
will not take the necessary steps to reverse the situation
because it would mean the end of their rule.

[teryang]

2. Disagree somewhat

There is a classical colonialist underpining to the whole endeavor but it could be a delusion, ideological in nature, (much like that of George III) adhered to by the ruling cabal. I think that there are also innate social and political imperatives. What are aspiring ambitious men and women to do if they are not to be medical doctors? Disraeli knew the political value of Rhodesian adventures.

Why not join the British East India Company like Sir Richard Francis Burton and play the great game for ten thousand a month (killing wogs). There's a great way to blow off steam and make a few bucks. What would these relatively young otherwise underemployed upwardly ambitious people do as the middle class marketing cow has been gutted?

WMD are neutralized in the formal nation state context, so conventional military power projection is viable. The wild card of course is the suitcase nuke or parade of horribles from the unknown malefactor which is really something a great power might get behind to teach us a lesson if we embark on futher excesses.

Some of the counter militating factors are guerilla warfare, which even the playing field for determined enemies with outside sponsorship a la Vietnam, and other successful nationalist movements. Of course nowadays we use guerilla movements to topple democratic regimes for corporate conquest and plunder.

Other problems are overestimation of American conventional power at the end of the logistical line and also demographically. Another problem is that the Alfred Thayer Mahan leverage that is allegedly obtained really only benefits those economic sectors directly involved while the balance of payments deficit is aggravated by military adventure and the budget deficits skyrocket. Imperialism isn't really that profitable.

So some of our "rivals" gloat while we hemmorhage.

[bemildred]

3. True, they could be nuts, hermetically sealed in their own

self-validating reality. Oh wait ...

Your points are sound, we live in interesting times.

Nevertheless, as you say, it's gets harder and harder to make
it pay. Mr. Lind has some interesting pieces on this elsewhere,
and I can think of a few others going back into the eighties.

I can remember from my battle simulation days the frustrations
of modeling nuclear war. "OK, we pushed the buttons, let's go
call it a day." The rest of what you know about the "battle
space" immediately becomes moot.

The true issue is that the peasants and indigenes are well armed,
as is now on exhibit in Iraq, and whether the lesson is learned
in DC it will most certainly be understood in the 2nd and 3rd worlds.

[cornfedyank]

5. so what do we do with these type-A jerks.

we got rid of alot of them charging out of trenches. We thought bidness would provide them a way to keep score peacefully. But now they have used up most of the free resources and like a dog with both paws around the bowl they are growling.

it will take a generation to relearn the open minded. some will never understand the word enough.

live simply that others may simply live. -- mahandus ghandi

[lanparty]

4. Empire is THE PROBLEM ...

All the world would love us if we stopped acting like dick heads.

We need to treat the world like a big neighborhood. We need to be friendly and offer kind respect for our neighbors. The one's we don't like, we'll shun and be wary off. We'll have a "citizen's watch" to deal with gangs and other criminal organizations.