"Devine, James" wrote: > > I've spent a decade or three pooh-poothing "orthodox" Leninist-Marxist visions of > military-style inter-imperialist rivalry, i.e., a replay of WWI. Now, it's becoming > possible that Iraq could do to the US what Afghanistan did to the USSR... so it > might just happen some day soon. Of course, there are are other alternative > futures... > Jim Devine >
There are a few missing steps between the situation in Iraq (no matter how disastrous for the U.S.) and any replay of WW1 -- namely the development of an imperialist power prepared (and _driven_) to confront the u.s. militarily. That _could_, I believe, happen, but the EU, Russia, China, China/Japan, all have quite a way to go before they could mount such a challenge believably. But with the U.S. riding a tiger in the mideast, which I would anticipate would stretch its military capacity to the limit and force retreat elsewhere, anything could happen (that is, anything bad: nothing good can come of the u.s. occupation of Iraq, whether it ends soon or later). Incidentally, the current new uprising shows once more that passive public opinion (as measured in polls, elections, etc.) is NOT the relevant opinion. The relevant opinion is that of the minority prepared to act. I've always estimated that at about 10-15 percent of the population -- and I think even the u.s. controlled polls in Iraq indicate that that number has always existed. In a few years, even those Iraqi who actively friendly to the u.s. and concerned above all with order will see that that cannot be achieved until after the unconditional withdrawal of the U.S. That will neutralize that sector of the population politically, and the internal struggle will be between different anti-u.s. factions. Currently, the best analogy perhaps to the U.S. occupation is the Japanese invasion of China. Carrol
