Carrol writes:
Marvin Gandall wrote:
Well, Iraq was a test case of the neocon hypothesis, was it not? - both
in
terms of how easy it is to secure control of overseas oil fields, even in
a
broken defenceless country, and to break up the national oil company and
redistribute its assets to the multinationals.
It is NOT a neocon thesis; the invasion of Iraq was and is supported by
the totality of leading forces in the u.s. The dream that it is merely a
neocon aberration is a pleasant one, allowing u.s. leftists to avoid
facing the realities of u.s. policy.
==============================
Ok, I'll proceed on the assumption of your deeply mistaken view (and wishful
one, in order to bash "US leftists") that there was unanimity within the US
ruling class about a land invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Is there still unanimity within it on the necessity and, more important, the
feasibility of the US securing military control of all oil being shipped
overland and by sea from oil-producing states?
What internal evidence, as apart from outside speculation, do you have to
support this claim? I hope you won't drop "Securing the Realm" on us, the
tired old Project for a New American Century document which predates Iraq,
since you obviously believe the views expressed there are much more broadly
"supported by the totality of leading forces in the u.s."
