==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
I agree with Lou P here, I think that it is important for socialists
both within and outwith the USA to keep a watch on the debates within
US foreign policy, and to see how critical voices such as Mearsheimer
provide ideas for alternative courses for US imperialism. After all,
we are all affected by US foreign policy decisions, and it would be
foolish to rule out rapid and sharp changes in US diplomacy, not least
towards the Middle East.
That US policy decisions in respect of the Middle East have been
counter-productive, to put it mildly, for US imperial interests for
some time suggests that some changes are, if not inevitable, then very
likely. The lengthy debate over the influence of the Israel lobby
shows that there are many people within the foreign policy field who
see the need for change on this issue.
Whilst on the subject of US policy towards the Middle East, the
Northite website today ran a piece --
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/iraq-j04.shtml -- on a
Wikileaks document which shed light on the Iraqi-US talks just prior
to the first Gulf War. Although the contents of the document have been
broadcast previously, it is worth considering again the fact that
Iraq's disputes with Kuwait over the latter's drilling of Iraq's oil
was raised by Saddam Hussein with the US Ambassador, and the latter
told him that the USA had no position in respect of any moves by Iraq
against Kuwait or other Gulf States.
This, the World Socialist site considers, effectively informed Saddam
that the USA would not oppose any action that Iraq chose to take
against the Gulf States, and that, in the light of the subsequent
US-led crusade against Iraq, Saddam was -- to put it bluntly -- set
up.
Although the Northites like nothing more than a good conspiracy, I
have long felt that this was the case. Saddam, whilst a brutal
dictator at home, was very cautious when it came to international
affairs. He would not have launched a foreign adventure if he felt
that this would lead to unpleasant repercussions. That he was told
that the USA had no position in respect of this, and was not told that
such a move was 'inadvisable' or some other diplomatic term meaning
that such a move would get him deeply into trouble, makes me feel that
he was given the green light to attack Kuwait precisely in order for
the USA to have an excuse to attack Iraq.
Paul F
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
