Louis Proyect wrote:
> Marvin Gandall wrote: > > Whether you think invasion/occupation versus sanctions/subversion represents > > only a nuance of difference or is more significant than that is a matter of > > judgment, of course. Certainly, you can make a case that the sanctions cost > > many lives -- perhaps as many or more than the invasion and subsequent > > occupation. But I think, if forced to choose, the Iraqis would still have > > preferred to continue contesting and evading the sanctions rather than face > > occupation by an invading American army. > > Of course. That is why the US ruling class opted for war rather than > sanctions. They were becoming ineffective. Wars are made by a class, not > individuals by the way. ----------------------------------------- You seriously misunderstand the nature of the conflict when you state that "the US ruling class opted for war." The US ruling class was and remains very divided over the invasion of Iraq, over whether it served or hurt US strategic interests. I think its closer to the truth to characterize the Iraq invasion as a hubristic adventure by the Bush administration, acting in maverick fashion against the wishes of a large, probably major, part of its own ruling class and the international bourgeoisie. That operation, as anticipated, turned into a debacle, and the Bushites have since been reined in and their early foreign policy doctrines discredited. I don't think you would argue the "sanctions were becoming ineffective" in terms of the harm they were inflicting on the Iraqi population. It's true that they had been ineffective in fostering the hoped-for coup, and were being evaded and loosened in negotations through the UN. Nevertheless, it doesn't follow from this (and there is no evidence to indicate) that a Gore administration would have launched an invasion, especially when this would have precipitated a rupture with its traditional and would-be allies and weakened the authority of the UN, which the Democrats and many Republican leaders properly view as a useful instrument of US foreign policy. As Clinton has noted, and I believe this to be so, the Democrats would have continued to work through the UN, prodding Blix and the inspectors to disarm, humiliate, and neuter Saddam -- accepting this as a less certain, but less risky, means of regime change than an invasion. They didn't have the peculiar Saddam obsession of the Bushites, nor did they think it would be easy to secure Iraq. Like you and I, the bipartisan foreign policy establishment thinks more in terms of its overall class interests than individuals. Marv Gandall
