The subject line, "Gore against the War," is seriously misleading. Consider the following paragraph:
**** We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible. By contrast, the war against terror manifestly requires broad and continuous international cooperation. Our ability to secure this kind of cooperation can be severely damaged by unilateral action against Iraq. If the Administration has reason to believe otherwise, it ought to share those reasons with the Congress - - since it is asking Congress to endorse action that might well impair a more urgent task: continuing to disrupt and destroy the international terror network.**** That sounds more like a declaration of war than an anti-war speech. The argument is strictly over tactics, though there may be some strategic differences also which will only appear in time. I may have some differences with the following post, fwd from PSN (Progressive Sociologists) list, but it seems to me to offer at least a point of departure for examining current "divisions" within the ruling class.(The divisions in any case are certainly not antagonistic ones.) Carrol -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Divided ruling class Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:51:20 -0400 From: ROSENTHAL STEVEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tal is right that the ruling class is seriously split about how to deal with Iraq, and that it is important for us to analyze and understand this split in order to develop a strategy to fight against U.S. war preparations. Senator Kennedy is the latest to weigh in against the Bush plan. As the NY Times reported, "Senator Edward M. Kennedy said today that the United States should not go to war against Iraq until all reasonable alternatives had been tried, and that premature military action would weaken the worldwide campaign against terrorism." Kennedy's statement is similar to those of the many other Democratic (and some Republican) politician, generals, and former high-ranking government officials who have sought to restrain Bush's unilateralism, that is, to urge Bush not to act without strong public, Congressional, and UN approval. What is this debate about? I believe that this is a debate about how to go to war, not about whether to go to war. One faction of the Bush administration seems to believe that the U.S. is so much stronger than all other forces in the world that it can act unilaterally with impunity. It can remove Saddam and rearrange the Middle East, regardless of what other governments and their populations think. Other factions seem to think that the U.S. may not find the path to victory to be so smooth, and that international support for U.S. actions is necessary to achieve U.S. goals. Some of the multilateralists may even think that Bush's unilateralist bluster is useful. It frightens and intimidates allies and adversaries and helps bring them into the war coalition. The multilateral camp represents, I believe, the main sectors of the U.S. ruling class, including the biggest international energy companies: Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, and Shell. These companies control about half of all global oil output. They want to make sure that the regime change in Iraq consolidates and extends their control over Middle East oil, rather than destabilizing it. If I am right, then it would be a big mistake for us to see these ruling class critics of Bush as an anti-war opposition which might be able to deter the right wing madman Bush from going to war. I think they are strongly committed to a wider and longer war. They want to make sure that the Iraq chapter of this war does not make it more difficult to wage the rest of the "war against terrorism." The debate within the ruling class creates opportunities for us to help our students and friends understand what is going on. It demonstrates once more that the more liberal sounding wing of the ruling class may in fact have the more dangerous plans. It should also encourage us to see that, even after September 11, the ruling class is having a tough time imposing discipline and unity within its own ranks. There are diverse U.S. oil interests who have their sights on Iraqi oil. Michael Klare's article in the Oct. 7 issue of The Nation, "Oiling the Wheels of War," is one of many writings that analyze the imperialist ambitions of major ruling class forces. The corporate scandals of the past year show that the competitive forces that drive capitalism make it very difficult for the capitalist class to get its members to act in their class interests, as opposed to their individual or corporate interests. Steve Rosenthal _______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
