[Marxism] THE MILITANT looks at the boom times coming ahead
walterlx at earthlink.net
Mon Nov 8 21:40:42 MST 2004
Washington's goals included, but were not limited to:
1-Preventing Saddam's regime from kicking the dollar out
and changing over to the euro
2-Stealing Iraq's immense oil wealth which under Saddam
was in the hands of a non-U.S.-controlled state oil
3-Sending a political message to the world and to all of
the U.S. collaborators in it that this is what the US
will do to you if you resist 100% prostration before
US demands for 100% subordination.
4-If U.S. control of Iraq and the Middle East can be
accomplished with stooge force and a pretense of
"democracy", so much the better, as in El Salvador.
If not, the U.S. will send an occupation army, as it
did in Cuba, and as it is doing in Iraq today. Any
port in a storm, in the final analysis.
Steve Gabosch spends a great deal of time re-stating and
requiting the words of Jack Barnes and of THE MILITANT,
and somewhat less quoting the words of Walter Lippmann.
However, neither Barnes nor Lippmann ultimately are all
that important. Facts are stubborn things.
Are we seeing a people struggling, by whatever means at
its disposal, to rid its country of an unpopular, and
unwanted, and a hostile foreign occupation army, or not?
It seem to me, and to most people, that we're seeing a
people's resistance to foreign occupation, and not the
successful re-tooling of imperialism's predatory armies,
as THE MILITANT seems to see.
So we still need to go back to that old-time mantra:
Which Side Are You On, Boy? Which Side Are You On?
Despite the victory of the Bush administration in the
recent United States selection process, the world is
deepening its resistance to Washington in myriad forms.
The Socialist Workers Party hasn't as yet published its
analysis of the triumph of the Frente Amplio in Uruguay.
But we know they'll see it as a popular front betrayal.
They thought Salvador Allende was a popular fronter
and a betrayer.
They think Lula is a betrayal. They think Chavez is a
betrayal. They think Kirchner is a betrayal. They think
Zapatero is an anti-American demagogue. But Fidel Castro
has a friendly approach to all of them. As we like to say
here in Cuba, "no es facil" (it isn't easy.) It's hard to
be the only kid in town who isn't a terrible betrayer.
STEVE GABOSCH writes
Keep in mind that the Militant also argues, I think quite
cogently, that the US goal is not a permanent major
military occupation of Iraq with its troops, but US
imperialist dominance of Iraq's resources, economy, state
-as well as similar dominance of the Middle East and most
of the world.
More information about the Marxism