[Marxism] Re:Bush's obscene tirades

Nick Halliday halliday.nick at gmail.com
Tue Aug 30 05:07:32 MDT 2005

Deja vu! Didn't we get a lot of the same stuff with the pretzel
episode as the first media-vetted Eikon Basilike, and then the man
went on to oversee an incredibly successful presidential campaign, and
a continuation of his 'militarism as foreign policy' which so enriches
his politically connected business supporters. The only thing that
rivals the money the Republican states and districts get from military
and security spending (including the DEA and the 'WAR ON DRUGS') would
be when FEMA responds so generously to still yet another hurricane
ripping through still yet another unprepared southern hurricane-belt
state. Go Missississippi!

Getting to, at least for me, the most interesting part of this
discussion, CC writes:

>> See in particular the posts by Yoshie and by C.G. Estabrook If you
check the LBO archives.>>

Or perhaps my collection of fingernail clippings? Uh, no thanks.

But more significantly, CC adds:

>>The core is this, Vietnam was a demonstration war, and the u.s.
could achieve its vital aims merely by doing an immense amount of
damage, even though it was forced to withdraw militarily.>>

It never withdrew militarily from the region (tactical nukes and all);
it simply lost one place to occupy. Perhaps the aspiration has a
motivation that is not historically irretrievable. The US and its
national security state have long looked for countries that will
passively put up with extended, extensive occupation while helping to
pay for that occupation (in other words, the 'political solution' for
a client state). Vietnam, perhaps, looked to be a better model than
Korea--at the time. And weren't the French far more distracted with
Algeria? Anyway, the templates are permenantly occupied and
politically pacified Germany and Japan/Okinawa, with S. Korea and
Taiwan joining them (but huge unresolved problems overhang these two
economically developed client states). The US never could get the
Philippines to pay for its occupation, and Singapore can pay, but just
isn't big enough for what the US military had in mind.

>>The Iraq war is for a definite goal, the permanent location of a
u.s. military force in the Mideast. This explains the substantial
unity of  the u.s. ruling class behind Bush's War, however discontent
many members of that class may become with Bush's bungling leadership.

Right about the goal--Saudi Arabia is just too politically fragile and
socially unstable to keep on housing the US military. It's not even
very good for isolated air bases in the middle of nowhere, never mind
the need for roads and ports to transport tanks and artillery
pieces.But your analysis is hardly cutting edge--hey, check the
archives of this list and that other list you cite.

Wrong about the bungling. I'd say his leadership has been exemplary
for those who back such occupations in order to justify the total
militarization of the US federal government. The goal here is a
two-fer one occupation: (1) permanent military bases in a country that
is more socially flexible than the Arabian peninsula's (plus Egypt)
oil-military-dollar states along with (2) the destruction and break up
of the one Arab country that Israel has long identified as Arab Threat

Now had the Iraqis just bowed down to the Americans, King George and
CentCom would have been pleased to announce some sort of Potemkinesque
'reconstruction' of Iraq (in line with both Democratic and Republican
views of the world) along with showcase US bases, in part, paid for by
the high price of oil (but then again, one reason why the price of oil
is so high is THAT lack of Iraqi oil now that the Baathist state is

I'm pretty sure that Bush and Rumsfeld were thinking it would take 5
years to get in place the sort of things that would just about
guarantee their bets paid off, so isn't it nice for them that they got
two terms?

Since the Iraqis (predictably enough--check out those archives)
wouldn't cooperate in great enough numbers, the occupation has killed
off a large part of the population, imprisoned tens of thousand, and
knocked most of the country down. Meanwhile, they have got their
hirelings working on a plan to 'federally re-constitute' the budding
Iraqi democracy, which is to be Kurdistan, the oil-rich Sistani
Republic of Greater Basra, and and a Sunni proctectorate that, if it
were to relate to anything, would relate to Jordan the way Kosovo is
supposed to be related to Albania.

>>Much more, then, is at stake in the present war than was ever at
stake during the Vietnam, and we should keep this in mind in our
thinking about building resistance to the war.>>

I would have to agree there. Without Iraq, the US federal
government/national security state would lose its reason for being.
I think the naivete of many who at least are thinking, talking about,
and even theorizing the 'anti-war' movement in the US consists of this
willingness to believe that the US national security state is going to
be somehow democratically responsive (oh, those opinion polls, or the
thought of having to vote for still yet another pro-war Democrat!)
after they have bet--totally bet--the farm on the break up and
permanent occupation of Iraq.

It reminds me of those who said--without really voicing strong
opinions about Bush's predictable invasion (read those archives
again)--that the US just wouldn't go through with the a war that held
out the prospect of high casualties or costly and unpopular
occupation. Whereas those in the know would have seen that Bush and
Co.--along with quite a few Zionist policy advisers and
propagandists--were planning on how to restructure their entire
worldwide military capability on the idea!

The military restructuring is going on apace, and the stop gap
financing is there (Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and E. Asia buy up
US debt instruments; Germany, heart of the EU, helps occupy
Afghanistan through NATO).

Now the real permanent bases have to be built in Iraq, and the US
needs a 'constitutional' fait accompli. Meanwhile, the world gets
Cindy Sheehan and the bloody shirt. Add that to the 'anti-war' tactic
of saying 'they lied to us about WMD!' and 'see what a mess this
well-intentioned occupation has been!' George Bush will go down in
history as a fulminating idealist. A bit like a moronic Woodrow
Wilson, I guess.


More information about the Marxism mailing list