Julio wrote:
MG: > I guess we've reached the point where your guess is as good as mine,
Julio.
I agree with much of what you say, but we still seem to have a different
perception of how necessary the occupation is to US economic and security
interests, and how determined the Bush administration is to maintain it. I
think the long occupation, on balance, is harming those interests, and we
sometimes forget that the Bushites never planned on one.
JH: Our disagreement may be minor though.
In these exchanges, my emphasis has been on the importance of Iraq to
U.S. *imperialism*, not to U.S. *capitalism*. They are not
disconnected, but neither are they identical or the former the
inevitable manifestation of the latter. (I view imperialism as much
more of an historical contingency in U.S. capitalist history than,
say, those who apply Lenin's theses on imperialism to the U.S.
literally.)
To summarize my views: With regards to U.S. *imperialism*, the outcome
of the Iraq occupation is decisive. The defeat will be ruinous. With
regards to U.S. *capitalism*, the occupation is not only not
necessary, but harmful, and -- in fact -- the defeat may turn out to
be a blessing for U.S. capitalism in the long run. We'll see.
{...}
-------------------------------------
MG: We do agree.
Even if the US is able to somewhat disguise its defeat with the aid of a
friendly Iraqi govenment to be elected next month, it's hard to see how the
adventure will turn out to be anything other than "ruinous", as you put it,
for imperialism's ability to intervene in force elsewhere for an extended
period.
One of the reasons the neocons - the most toxic expression of US
imperialism - launched a land invasion was to put paid once and for all to
the "Vietnam syndrome" which inhibited America's ability to secure territory
with troops on the ground, forcing it to rely almost exclusively on the
limits of air power. Instead of an intimidating "Bush doctrine" what has
emerged instead is its opposite: a new "Iraq syndrome", reinforcing the
lesson of Vietnam a generation earlier.
The consequences of the occupation - at least as seen through establishment
eyes - are summarized in an article in the latest Foreign Affairs by
political scientist John Mueller:
"Among the casualties of the Iraq syndrome could be the Bush doctrine,
unilateralism, preemption, preventive war, and indispensable-nationhood.
Indeed, these once-fashionable (and sometimes self-infatuated) concepts are
already picking up a patina of quaintness. Specifically, there will likely
be growing skepticism about various key notions: that the United States
should take unilateral military action to correct situations or overthrow
regimes it considers reprehensible but that present no immediate threat to
it, that it can and should forcibly bring democracy to other nations not now
so blessed, that it has the duty to rid the world of evil, that having by
far the largest defense budget in the world is necessary and broadly
beneficial, that international cooperation is of only very limited value,
and that Europeans and other well-meaning foreigners are naive and decadent
wimps. The United States may also become more inclined to seek international
cooperation, sometimes even showing signs of humility.
"In part because of the military and financial overextension in Iraq (and
Afghanistan), the likelihood of any coherent application of military power
or even of a focused military threat against the remaining entities on the
Bush administration's once-extensive hit list has substantially diminished.
In the meantime, any country that suspects it may be on the list has the
strongest incentive to make the American experience in Iraq as miserable as
possible. Some may also come to consider that deterring the world's last
remaining superpower can be accomplished by preemptively and prominently
recruiting and training a few thousand of their citizens to fight and die in
dedicated irregular warfare against foreign occupiers.
"Evidence of the Iraq syndrome is emerging. Already, Bush has toned down his
language. When North Korea abruptly declared in February that it actually
possessed nuclear weapons, the announcement was officially characterized as
"unfortunate" and as "rhetoric we've heard before." Iran has already become
defiant, and its newly elected president has actually had the temerity to
suggest -- surely the unkindest cut -- that he does not consider the United
States to be the least bit indispensable. Ultimately, the chief
beneficiaries of the war in Iraq may be Iraq's fellow members of the 'axis
of evil.' "
Full:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101faessay84605-p0/john-mueller/the-iraq-syndrome.html
